20 ms·

Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

• seiferteric 3y ago
  "growth"? lol, more like usage.
  • seiferteric 3y ago
    Am I wrong? Why down vote? because it makes you feel bad? Where is the evidence we can continue doing what we are doing and not hit or exceed 1.5C?
    • mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      FWIW, I think the substance of your comment is correct, but it might be the dismissive tone that attracted downvotes.
      • seiferteric 3y ago
        [flagged]
• slashdev 3y ago
  I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.
  • piuantiderp 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • slashdev 3y ago
      ?
    • tonmoy 3y ago
      Yes it did, and sea levels have risen too: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Note that since we are not about to stop carbon emission in the near future, the ice melt and sea level rise would increase well into the future
      • scythe 3y ago
        IIRC projected sea level rise over the next three decades is the same as observed sea level rise over the last century, i.e., it's accelerating. But keep in mind that it is partially driven by thermal expansion of water, not just ice melting.
    • recursive 3y ago
      Some did.
    • tsuujin 3y ago
      I’m not sure if you’re serious or not, but… https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/devastating-melt-greenland-antarctic-ice-sheets-found-rcna80616 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/devastating-melt...
    • courgette 3y ago
      I really hope you have property near a cost, any cost.
      • piuantiderp 3y ago
        It has been, perfectly fine. I've seen it all, starting with global cooling in the 70s, then warming, then cooling, then change. It's a convenient lie to get many people to have less kids which arguably is a good thing. If you look at the ice, the trend is not quite evident. It comes and goes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-06/this-winter-s-arctic-ice-cap-was-the-fifth-smallest-on-record https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-06/this-wint... Worry more about the solar minimum in 2030, take your precautions.
  • candiddevmike 3y ago
    Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • misiti3780 3y ago
      We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
      • CuteDinosaur 3y ago
        It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
        • hinkley 3y ago
          Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
        • politician 3y ago
          Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years. The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
        • mensetmanusman 3y ago
          It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything. Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
  • andyjsong 3y ago
    Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.
    • hkt 3y ago
      Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.
      • BossingAround 3y ago
        If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration? Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.
        • tunesmith 3y ago
          My understanding is it would help quite a lot, and would also not be sufficient by itself to solve the problem. Too many people jump from "it's not sufficient" to "therefore, we shouldn't do it".
        • jaggederest 3y ago
          Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area. So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 60% forest coverage. It would involve giving up important things like farming. It's not entirely a red herring, it will undoubtedly be a big part of climate change mitigation, but the first and most important step is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, like the article.
          • 3y ago
  • r3trohack3r 3y ago
    This is where I’m at too. At least as far as I understand it today (leaving this comment in the hope that folks can help me expand my understanding) Life on earth is not stable. We are in the final death throes of this planet. Roughly 75% of life on earth is behind us. Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left[1] until our carbon cycles grind to a halt due to the earth moving outside of the habitable zone and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event. This pending extinction event is not human made. It was coming regardless of whether humans evolved on this planet. From everything I can tell, there is no making it through, let alone coming back from, this impending extinction event without “technology” that decouples life from the carbon cycles on this planet. In 4.2bn years life on this planet has printed exactly one golden ticket for escaping that fate: humans. We’ve done some bad things along the way to industrialization processes that can produce the technology necessary to get life off this rock - and to artificially sustain life on this rock as it becomes unsuitable for life. But I’m not confident that the bad stuff we have done is sufficient to condemn our species and disqualify us as a suitable steward for this planet. Primarily because there is no alternative, there is no species in “second place” that I’d trust to evolve a civilization capable of getting life off this planet in the time we have left. The eco-movements (outside of whole earth) have lost me. The calls for an immediate suspension of industrial processes, or the sentiment that life on earth would be better off if humans didn’t evolve to be what we are today, seems misplaced. Without humans, and without our recent attempts to escape this planet, all life on earth is doomed to complete extinction. It seems like we are in a critical several hundred year window where humans need to appreciate both that we are accelerating the end of the Holocene, a climate that was critical for the development of our civilizations, and do our best to slow that process already under way. At the same time, we need to maintain the civilization that’s setting life on earth on an escape trajectory. If we toss the baby with the bathwater we doom all life on earth to guaranteed extinction. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
    • mech987987 3y ago
      Where did you read that the carbon cycle is coming to an end?
  • runarberg 3y ago
    We are already at 1.2° C. This is despite the fact that the El Niño index is negative. There is over 50% chance that we will experience a year in the next five years where the average temperature is > 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average. This is dire. I think we need to admit defeat, and declare a climate failure. Our goal going forward should be to do everything that keeps the temperature as possible. So far the goal of 1.5° C seems like it is taking us to 3-4° C by the end of the century, 3-4° C is basically an end of the world scenario.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • hannob 3y ago
    If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because everything we try helps making things better. And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x
    • slashdev 3y ago
      How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
      • phpnode 3y ago
        we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.
        • blooalien 3y ago
          Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.
      • circuit10 3y ago
        If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one
  • intrasight 3y ago
    A recent piece in The Economist argued that China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation, and if America is going to do better then we'll have to become more like China. I agree on both points. And I think that will be the outcome eventually.
    • NikolaNovak 3y ago
      That's fascinating, especially considering the source - do you have a link by any chance?
      • intrasight 3y ago
        I just looked but I can't find it. Is possible it was in another publication.
    • matthewdgreen 3y ago
      China is building a huge amount of renewable power and shipping tech to the world. But they're also burning a phenomenal amount of coal: so much so that they alone may determine whether we survive this next few decades.
    • jmclnx 3y ago
      > China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation If this is happening, and no reason to doubt that, it is easier for a Nation like China to do this than say the US. Why, Xi can say "Build more windmills now in ..." and it will happen. In the US, the 'in' is important, people will fight any development with in 10 miles of where they live. So it takes over 10 years for just the plan to be finalized. For a good example see: https://www.wcvb.com/article/nantucket-residents-lawsuit-to-stop-vineyard-wind/42645135 https://www.wcvb.com/article/nantucket-residents-lawsuit-to-... That is just the latest suit, IIRC this has been on-going for like 10 years.
      • MSFT_Edging 3y ago
        If we can force people out of their homes for overpasses and football stadiums, we can sure as hell force renewable projects through. China has one thing right, the idea of actions for a greater good. I forget the actual wording/idiom but we severely lack that in the west. It's all "what about me" and it drags any kind of progress to a halt unless it can be put in someone elses back yard or they can make a profit off of it.
  • Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    There won't be a miracle. The best and most scalable carbon sequestration is still growing trees without them rotting, but that takes generations to have an effect, assuming overproduction of CO2 stops right away. But at this point we've passed the point of no return; probably years ago, with permafrost, ice caps and glaciers melting and all the effects that has. I don't think any CO2 measures now will help anymore.
  • scythe 3y ago
    This is going to sound kind of cynical, but the primary mechanism of democratic — popular — feedback, in most countries around the world, is embarrassment. In the West, embarrassment means you lose elections; in less democratic countries, it may mean you get forced from power by other means. So the optimal climate target should maximize the utility of this embarrassment. It should not be too achievable, or countries will slack off, but it should not be obviously impossible, or that will be an excuse to give up. The carrot must always dangle just far enough in front of the horse. The point of 1.5 C as a target isn't that we meet it, but that we try to. If we could meet the target, we'd do even worse, and say "close enough", but that's no good.
    • digging 3y ago
      I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but embarrassment is not a factor for roughly half our politicians. They can literally be child predators, why would their base care if they're destroying the environment future generations, even if they believed it?
      • scythe 3y ago
        >They can literally be child predators Whatever particular incident you're referring to, the evidence was not released in a straightforward fashion, but tricked out through document drops and the partisan media, so that the pols could avoid a clear public announcement that so-and-so was a pedophile. That's exactly consistent with "avoiding embarrassment"; it just happens that a small fraction — usually, people who were already opposed to that official — believe they should be embarrassed. When there are clear allegations of CSA, as with Mark Foley, the individual is quickly cast out. When a politician embarrasses their own party, as with Madison Cawthorn, the same thing happens. When the message can be sufficiently contained and redirected, the embarrassment has been avoided.
  • _ph_ 3y ago
    It is like an imminent impact with your car. Whether you can still make it or not - you want to break as hard as possible to make the impact, if it cannot be avoided, the least violent you still can manage.
  • atlantic 3y ago
    The priority should be on protecting the biosphere, not on reaching arbitrary quantitative goals. The planet has adapted to much bigger temperature changes in the past, and will do so again, as long as humans stay out of the way. Staying out of the way means occupying less space, and particularly freeing up migratory corridors.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    The "miracle" would be admitting that technology can't get us out of every predicament we throw ourselves into, and disabusing ourselves of the notion that anything - the economy, civilization, human population - can grow infinitely on a finite planet without complete catastrophe. Admitting any one of those three things is anathema, though, so we comfort ourselves with pipe dreams of carbon sequestration, dyson spheres, and sending out probes to mine all our resources from the asteroid belt.
• davidjones332 3y ago
  [flagged]
• sambull 3y ago
  Most pressing issue in our futures
  • Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Futures? That's optimistic, it's affecting everyone already, right now. Droughts, food prices going up, heat records being broken. I mean personally it hits me in the wallet for groceries and having to make adjustments to my house (built for a cooler climate) to keep it comfortable, but that's probably a luxury position to be in compared to droughts, famines and forced relocation that millions of people are having.
    • Doofus20230425 3y ago
      [flagged]
• ahelwer 3y ago
  One eye-opening fact I recently learned is that fossil fuel infrastructure being built today is expected to have a three-decade lifespan, after completion of its construction. So every time you hear about a new pipeline, drilling project, or refinery being built you know that the people sitting in the rooms authorizing billions of dollars being allocated to the project all believe it will safely be operating and producing profit 35 years from now; they wouldn't invest otherwise. This is what business as usual looks like. Every new fossil energy project is incompatible with a world that takes climate change seriously. Money talks.
  • realreality 3y ago
    There are going to be a lot of "stranded assets" on a dead planet.
  • nxm 3y ago
    And where are those being built? Overwhelmingly in Asia and Africa
    • mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      Plenty of projects in North America and Europe.
      • whimsicalism 3y ago
        The number of refineries, etc. in those places are only decreasing. Sure, there might be some additional projects but for the most part: no.
    • bradjohnson 3y ago
      Not true, but don't let facts get in the way of your kneejerk racism. > The U.S. is leading in global LNG supply growth with an additional 5.9 million tonnes of capacity in 2022, for a total of 80 mtpa. > Norway saw the second-largest growth in LNG supply, with an additional 2.8 million tonnes of capacity. Malaysia and Qatar were close behind, with 2.4 million tonnes and 2.3 million tonnes of capacity growth in 2022, respectively.
• jdshupe 3y ago
  Does anyone have recommendations for good reading on this subject? What this means for combustion engines as a whole? I am trying to imagine where the push for clean energy will lead. I am fully on team green but I think the switch happened too late. I feel like there is a future where you have a large percent of the population (at least in the US) where EVs are too expensive to afford the monthly payment/up front payment to switch but gas prices rise to a point where they can't afford to fill their tank anymore either. People will always say "just use public transit" but most cities in the US have a barely managing system if they even have one.
  • kitkat_new 3y ago
    it's always possible to improve public transport, and it could happen fast if people would get their priorities straight; more options are car sharing and concentrating on more dense areas with walkable and cyclable infrastructure (keyword 15 minute cities). something to watch instead of read: NotJustBikes
  • Daishiman 3y ago
    I am a complete and absolute cynic on climate policies and outcomes, but battery technology is still having ridiculous breakthroughs day by day. Ultimately if the base price of a vehicle increases the financial instruments to make them affordable in the face of regulatory disincentives for ICEs will appear.
  • ericmay 3y ago
    Best reading recommendation would be to look at climate change projections from NOAA or similar organizations for where you live or want to live, assume those will be true within some +-, and then base your decisions off of that. There doesn't seem to be a substantial downside to getting it wrong if bad scenarios don't occur but if they do occur you'll want to have gotten it right. > People will always say "just use public transit" but most cities in the US have a barely managing system if they even have one. If only we could possibly do something about that.... but yea, EVs on the whole are better than ICE in this context, but 1-1 replacement schemes are a very bad idea and don't really address the underlying problems we face on climate change and other problems (social division, obesity, premature death, etc.); we need to stop driving everywhere. Unfortunately subtractive solutions (which are almost always better) such as building a little bit closer together (nobody is taking your SFH away), allowing businesses to operate near homes, and building sidewalks don't sell cars, don't fill transportation department budgets and justify jobs, don't win elections, and don't increase GDP. Some big multi-million dollar project that brings "300 new manufacturing jobs" gets the headline and gets the funding, even though building a few sidewalks and converting surface parking lot into businesses bring even more economic activity.
• paganel 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • nxm 3y ago
    I’m willing to do my part once private jets get banned
    • hkt 3y ago
      You should probably do your part, which may well involve campaigning for such an outcome. Plus recycling and ditching your car, obviously.
    • pbak 3y ago
      And what, you want them to do zoom calls and fly economy, or horror (gags profusely) , take the train like some common peasant ? The audacity !
    • pfisch 3y ago
      "Critics of coercive measures targeting private planes point out that a ban would only reduce carbon emissions by 0.2%, based on study of the direct cost of private jets alone." https://flybitlux.com/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-private-jet/ https://flybitlux.com/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-priv... Just admit you're not really intending to "do your part" at all. You just intend to whataboutism everyone else for the forseeable future.
      • wyre 3y ago
        I’m going to take anything a private charter jet company says about the carbon footprint of private jets with a very large grain of salt.
      • mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        0.2% of all emissions sounds like a disproportionately big win. Like the entire emissions of small country. That's a low hanging fruit. Let's do it!
• samanator 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20230425155432/https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-04-24/shell-admits-1-5c-climate-goal-means-immediate-end-to-fossil-fuel-growth/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230425155432/https://www.resil...
• mellosouls 3y ago
  Somewhat clickbaity: The dramatic shift in its new “Energy Security Scenarios” is not explicitly acknowledged, but, as Carbon Brief’s analysis shows, is hidden in plain sight. So, no, they haven't admitted it at all.
  • einpoklum 3y ago
    And even that is not admitting a truth, but kind of "haggling" about how bad things are, because even 0 growth in fossil fuel use does not get us < 1.5 celsius increase.
• paddw 3y ago
  let's just fire the chemicals into the air already and hope for the best
  • slothtrop 3y ago
    Even if we used sulfur, it's a band-aid solution. But it could buy time.
• adamvalve 3y ago
  Good.
• kstrauser 3y ago
  Growth? Growth?! Yes, we absolutely 100% should stop immediately digging the hole deeper.
  • Doofus20230425 3y ago
    [flagged]
• legitster 3y ago
  For all of the shellacking the fossil fuel industry gets (rightfully so), they have signalled several times that they are willing to transition to lower productions and higher prices and even into green energy. In 2016 oil companies spent the least amount on oil discovery in over 70 years! It was only after extreme political pressure that oil companies were basically forced into re-expanding capacity again. The market is willing - the demand is weak.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • legitster 3y ago
      I mean, even if we were at peak oil that would still give us a still a ton of carbon left to extract. I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.
    • runarberg 3y ago
      This has been true for the past 30 years. I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).
      • wkat4242 3y ago
        Well, fossil fuels are obviously finite so there will always be a peak. The concept itself is sound. The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)
• dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
• anonymous_2022 3y ago
  I never understood why this 1.5-2C global temperature is such a big issue when dinosaurs were living with average 15-20C Earth temperature and much higher CO2 levels (you can just google "world temperature history" or "co2 levels history". There were much more plants, diverse wildlife, etc. Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right? Also higher CO2 levels mean more ingridients for new trees/plants (eventually - food). I'm not trolling but really curious on this PoV and seems that the media is onesided on this topic (higher temperature / CO2 levels - bad and that's it). Noone is looking at it at a diferent angle.
  • BSVogler 3y ago
    The current warm period is happening across the world for the first time. The rate of change is unprecedented and it happens globally. No, heating if a planet is not good, when this also comes with stronger weather extremes, areas where it is impossible to survive and ecological stress that evolution can not deal with. I can get really tiring in explaining the basics in one of humanities biggest problem over and over again.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • handsaway 3y ago
    Well here's a start: humans are not dinosaurs. >Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right? This is not the choice we're dealing with? We are not in a situation where we either continue to cause global heating or else face an ice age.
  • Nagyman 3y ago
    The media is reporting what scientists are saying, who thoroughly consider all angles. You don't see it mentioned because it's a hypothesis that was rejected (long ago), with reason. Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now). If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!
• narrator 3y ago
  Net Zero 2050[1], the very public and very well publicly elaborated plan by the United Nations and many climate groups and other NGOs to have zero net carbon emissions by 2050, is such a ridiculously extreme set of targets that it kind of looks more like a Peak Oil mitigation plan than an implementable piece of public policy. Peak Oil production was in 2018, and it hasn't gotten back there since. Basically, I couldn't imagine Net Zero 2050 getting implemented in a democratic society. Personal automobiles and single family homes are ridiculously popular. If the amount of oil production is going to decline precipitously anyway, no matter what anyone says, why not have everyone prepare for it and make plans pretending they are doing it voluntarily. If global leaders talked about Peak Oil, that would promote nations to stop exporting oil and would stoke nationalism and make the problem dramatically worse for oil importing countries. Instead this Climate Change narrative brings countries together in a global regulatory framework. I think part of the Ukraine war is that Russia, being one of the last big oil exporters, is probably aware of the real situation and wants to use their energy reserves in their own national interest. China wants to partner with Russia to benefit from those interests. The West would rather have the Russian natural resources come under the influence of a leadership team more amenable to distributing those resources in a way more in-line with a global government working to manage the energy transition. Soros said in a recent speech that finishing the Ukraine War will help us move on to tackling Climate Change[2]. Recent Russian estimates show the war continuing on till at least 2027. At that point we'll be much further along the possible oil depletion curve and Russia's economic power will only increase. I would look for negligible attempts at carbon capture and sequestration, steady "voluntary" OPEC output cuts and a growing reliance on coal as tells that this is a Peak Oil mitigation plan and not about Climate Change. Look at China[3] lately going all-in on coal energy production for example. [1]https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1645186289933623296 https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1645186289933623296 [2]https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-crisis-deepens-and-ukraine-outlook-improves-by-george-soros-2023-03 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-crisis-... [3]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-country https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-countr...
• mnky9800n 3y ago
  climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is about stealing from the plants and animals we share this planet with that are currently going through a massive extinction event.
  • slothtrop 3y ago
    Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They want houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, delicious and convenient food too. The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would. Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.
    • mnky9800n 3y ago
      a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things. Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.” We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
• billwear 3y ago
  climate change is also affected by the amount of swamp we replace by concrete. here in the Louisiana wetlands, the amount of CO2 that the environment can "sink" is enormous, but the wetlands are shrinking every day for more refineries and pipelines and.... there's a balance we haven't found and don't want to find. rich people apparently don't really care about their grandchildren.
  • selimthegrim 3y ago
    Where in LA are you?
• red-iron-pine 3y ago
  admits it, yes. gonna do something about it, no. they've talked a good game about this previously but made no changes; no reason to think this will be any different.
• ddgflorida 3y ago
  A few more degrees won't hurt anyone... I mean everyone.
• somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Keep it in the ground
• hatsune 3y ago
  It's certainly an improvement that now they speak with partial evidence and admittance, compared to paying for "climate change hoax" campaigning. In context, the heating we had now already caused massive destruction in polar, in whales, in shallow sea, in mosquitos, in plagues, in desertification. Thus any decrease is welcome. We are not having quota to spare. We're trying to pay a subprime mortgage made before. Kudos to Shell for admitting that, but the question is how in the world they are able to function and sell stuff? Grid company can switch to renewable comfortably, but Shell found its way in digging ground. I guess they at least will make the shift to natural gas as that stuff ain't that terrible compared to petroleum, and they can still sell petroleum for plastic.