2 ms·
Shell has always countered the argument that they should to more to reduce CO2 emissions by making the government responsible for forcing them. They say they ev
by Lutger 5y ago
Shell has always countered the argument that they should to more to reduce CO2 emissions by making the government responsible for forcing them. They say they even asked the government to intervene, as it's unrealistic to expect a company to do so of it's own accord. Of course, they don't mean that, but it is an integral part of their greenwashing campaigns.
The proper response would be to rejoice that they finally got what they wanted and lobby for the same judgement for their competitors, then get on with it and finally reduce their emissions.
- JamesBarney 5y ago> The proper response would be to rejoice that they finally got what they wanted and lobby for the same judgement for their competitors, then get on with it and finally reduce their emissions. Because they didn't get what they want. Imagine you make widgets and you pay your employees $5/hr. You want to pay your employees $10/hr but you can't because your widgets would then be too expensive, you'd be driven out of business and your employees would have to get jobs elsewhere for $5/hr. But if a the government enforced a $10/hr minimum wage then you can pay your employees $10/hr, you don't go out of business, and your employees can keep their jobs. It's a collective action problem and the government is uniquely good at solving them while businesses are uniquely bad.