3 ms·
>Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves. I
by fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves.
I don't think it matters for our planet what these companies do or whether they can reinvent themselves. The climate change problem can only be tackled from the demand side. As long as there is demand for hydrocarbons someone will meet that demand and someone will invest in new production. Not letting it happen under western brand names may soothe some people's conscience but it won't reduce carbon emissions.
- g8oz 5y agoOnly the Western majors have the skills to extract oil from the tough spots in a cost-effective manner.
- fauigerzigerk 5y agoIntellectual property and (to a degree) skills can be transferred to different companies. And I think there are plenty of reserves in not so tough spots like Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Russia.
- pydry 5y agoIt's not really much help to anyone having the skills to extract oil from tar sands in Canada at a cost of $85 per barrel when you can only sell it for $65. Especially so if oil usage keeps declining and demand continues to be sated from oil fields where you barely have to knock a hole in the ground like Saudi.
- pydry 5y agoThere is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Demand is also not an implacable force. It can be weakened, strengthened and modified with policy and investment. As can supply.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago>There is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Unfortunately, large parts of our existing infrastructure depend very specifically on hydrocarbons. That's what we have to change.
- pydry 5y agoIt's already happening. Indeed, shell have been dipping their toe in the water with building out some of that infrastructure.