This is a "glass half-empty"/"glass half-full" story. Shareholders demanded action on greenhouse gas emissions from a fossil fuel extraction company, and got a rational plan to tie Royal Dutch...
This is a "glass half-empty"/"glass half-full" story. Shareholders demanded action on greenhouse gas emissions from a fossil fuel extraction company, and got a rational plan to tie Royal Dutch Shell executives' compensation to reduction targets.
This is good news under any circumstances. It's a precedent-setting first which is likely to establish some controls and accountability throughout the industry. A big coalition of major pension funds and other large institutional investors was wise enough to demand long-term sustainability rather than short-term profitability. The group is also demanding changes in how political lobbying is conducted.
On the other hand, it's nowhere near enough emissions reduction, and it doesn't happen quickly enough to alter the general trend towards devastation. The long-term trend of increase in global energy demand means the proposed carbon reductions are even less meaningful than they appear on the surface. https://outline.com/rzHPcV
Natural gas is not a zero-carbon source of energy, and changing its proportion while continuing fossil fuel extraction is never going to achieve the cuts needed. Shell is also trying to avoid giving itself a competitive disadvantage - there are other companies and nations which will happily keep pumping and mining carbon sources. There isn't any way to control this effectively except at the legislative level, outside of fickle markets.
Yeah on the one hand I'm glad there seem to be at least some people in positions of power waking up to the realities of climate change. On the other hand: this is very little coming from Shell, a...
Yeah on the one hand I'm glad there seem to be at least some people in positions of power waking up to the realities of climate change. On the other hand: this is very little coming from Shell, a group so notoriously mired in controversy and just straight up bad faith that I can't imagine this is anything but begrudging acquiescence from them.
This is a "glass half-empty"/"glass half-full" story. Shareholders demanded action on greenhouse gas emissions from a fossil fuel extraction company, and got a rational plan to tie Royal Dutch Shell executives' compensation to reduction targets.
This is good news under any circumstances. It's a precedent-setting first which is likely to establish some controls and accountability throughout the industry. A big coalition of major pension funds and other large institutional investors was wise enough to demand long-term sustainability rather than short-term profitability. The group is also demanding changes in how political lobbying is conducted.
On the other hand, it's nowhere near enough emissions reduction, and it doesn't happen quickly enough to alter the general trend towards devastation. The long-term trend of increase in global energy demand means the proposed carbon reductions are even less meaningful than they appear on the surface. https://outline.com/rzHPcV
Natural gas is not a zero-carbon source of energy, and changing its proportion while continuing fossil fuel extraction is never going to achieve the cuts needed. Shell is also trying to avoid giving itself a competitive disadvantage - there are other companies and nations which will happily keep pumping and mining carbon sources. There isn't any way to control this effectively except at the legislative level, outside of fickle markets.
Yeah on the one hand I'm glad there seem to be at least some people in positions of power waking up to the realities of climate change. On the other hand: this is very little coming from Shell, a group so notoriously mired in controversy and just straight up bad faith that I can't imagine this is anything but begrudging acquiescence from them.