Originally posted on EVANNEX.
By Charles Morris
A few years ago, when electric vehicles were considered an R&D project, fossil fuel demand had nothing to do with them. Now that Tesla is a trillion-dollar company (bigger than any other luxury car and larger than most “oil giants”), the people of Petroleum have started a press conference in the Supreme Court. Every day, my LinkedIn feed is owned by an oil company – articles about how they are working to green up and save the planet for our grandchildren (nothing can be said about the endless horror stories about EVs – where).
I’ve seen some beautiful things, and I’m sure you do too, but this cake will take over. According to Ben Van Barden, CEO of Royal Netherlands Shell. BBC In a recent interview, he said his company wants to move to zero by 2050, but needs revenue from the oil and gas business to pay for it.
“At this time [the cash] It comes from our heritage business, ”Mr. Van Barden said. BBCSpeaking at a massive Pernice oil refinery near Rotterdam, Shell plans to switch from waste gasoline and diesel to biofuels and hydrogen to somewhat cleaner – within a decade. “If we have to build a $ 1 billion hydrogen plant from the North Sea, it will not be supported by the hydrogen business – it will be covered by the oil and gas business.”
Although we leave aside the question of whether hydrogen is anything but a new market for oil and gas, this philosophical textbook is a type that can be used as an example of sophistication, circular persuasion, or any other logical error. It is also a type of argument used by alcoholics and drug addicts to explain the extreme overcrowding.
Climate scientists agree that if humans do not want to be harmed, we must stop consuming fossil fuels as soon as possible. Over the next three decades, it will not diminish slightly, but gradually eliminate it.
Shell and other oil experts, who highlight the absurdity of the “we will get rid of tomorrow” argument, also failed to minimize what Mr. Van Bardon called “their legitimate business.” Oh the opposite, Want to expand. Among other projects, Shell is currently working to develop a new refinery called Cambo in the North Sea, which is expected to produce 170 million barrels of oil. The company plans to spend four times the cost of developing new oil and gas sources next year. He is battling a number of decisions that require him to reduce emissions in Dutch courts.
According to Global Climate Insights, Shu Ling Liau analyzes the company’s oil expenditure plan and estimates that Shell will produce more emissions by 2030. “Even if you are very generous and think you can get the carbon footprint and storage and compensation you need ራሉ they will increase emissions by 2030 and they are still producing huge emissions by 2050,” she said. BBC.
Most of the time, oil companies have abandoned their attempts to argue that climate change is a myth, but now they are pushing for more sustainable use of their products. Anyone who believes that these companies plan to switch to renewable energy or EV charges, or that they will find a way to store, dispose of or hide it, is smoking the fossil fuels. Not oil.
Birds began to fly, fish to swim, oil companies to dig. That is what they are doing, and they will continue to use every means at their disposal — public relations campaigns, political contributions, investments in clean energy companies — to overcome obstacles. And it is not good to blame the shell company or any other individual for the oil company. Oil is a fungus, and if the shell is not drilled in the Arctic or the Gulf of Mexico or in your neighbor’s yard, another company will work. Nor can any government policy or regulation change this.
“I think this transfer of power is possible but it will require a lot of orchestra and a lot of public confidence,” said Mr Van Barden. “If you want to destroy trust by raising energy prices, creating shortages or market failures, I think politicians are losing public acceptance that this is possible.”
Here he has a point. He said that if the government tried to suppress the supply of oil, consumers would be more inclined to say, “Dig, baby boar!” He prefers. Strong (where the world is so much bigger). Reducing consumption requires incentives both for supply and demand – which is why California has both ZEV orders (forcing cars to sell EVs) and incentives (to encourage drivers to buy). And, of course, the most important motivation for all of them is growing from Tesla and other new, compelling EVs.
There is no doubt that oil companies have a role to play in the clean-up process. There are many things they can do to make their work greener, which can be helpful – for example, plugging in millions of holes left to stop methane emptying. Protecting oily workers should be a priority. The key to non-negotiation, however, is that fossil fuels used for transportation and power generation must fall to zero by 2050, and this is a world shell and excise that will never be accepted. Without Tesla, and without government-mandated emissions and ICE restrictions, does anyone really believe that oil companies (or cars) are going to do anything other than business as usual? Take another swell.
Big Oil wants to own not only the table but also the table and control the conversation. At the recent COP26 conference, there were 503 delegates from fossil fuels – the largest delegation in any country. They are using the same arguments we have heard from cigarette companies and narcotics to shift the blame to consumers (because they have no other choice). It is safe for policymakers to burn billions of barrels of oil and gas.
Do not fall for it. As Albert Einstein put it, “We cannot solve problems by the way we think when we create problems.
Do we appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica? Consider becoming a member of CleanTechnica, a supporter, technician or ambassador – or Patreon’s guardian.