[1] https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-cl...
[1] https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-cl...
No doubt they will try to kill it a second time or hinder sales it it diminishes there profit. In my country, we have some of the cheapest electricity in the world. Despite that it is barely advantageous financially to recharge an EV on the highway. It mostly depends on the efficiency of the EV and about half of them are less economical than IC vehicles in this setting, per magazine tests.
Since charging on the highway is already a boottleneck (recharge time x number of charging stations x real estate), energy companies lose no customers by charging (no pun) a premium for it.
I see lots of hate for oil companies, but not a lot for those who choose to fly a lot or drive gigantic cars. The F150 is America's best selling vehicle, passenger trains are basically unusable in North America, suburbia makes public transport impossible.
We live in a consumerist society where virtually every product we own or use contains plastic or has been shipped from the other side of the world, but we lay blame on those who extract the oil.
How convenient.
In much of the world, fossil fuel usage has been heavily subsidized and alternatives actively opposed. I would not blame anyone who bought the car their society made necessary anywhere near as much as the people who saw a problem and prevented it being addressed at far less cost than it will now take. When Exxon first learned global warming was happening, it was the 1970s – a carbon tax, renewable fuels, transit investments, etc. would have been so much cheaper back then – but not for them, so they heavily funded efforts to make the topic political, told everyone it wasn’t real and you shouldn’t feel a need to buy a fuel efficient vehicle, and successfully stymied action for half a century.
I mean, the average SUV sold now gets much worse mileage than the car my dad bought to commute in the 80s - simply staying on that curve would have bought us a decade or two.
What oil companies have done is certainly damaging to society - but let's please not lose sight of the fact that it is ultimately consumers who are calling the shots.
To me the truth is that we love convenience, enjoy travel and just having lots of stuff - hundreds of millions of people are fully aware of the effects of climate change and still choose to consume unbelievable amounts of oil, directly and indirectly. The title of Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth" is really quite apt - people watch and understand to then go on an fly across the globe.
If our image of the average citizen is that they are helpless in the face of propaganda/advertising, cannot think for themselves and cannot be held accountable for their behavior/decisions, then I don't believe that's compatible with a democratic system.
Consumers/voters have responsibility and corporations stand and fall based on how we all choose to spend our money. The one-sided criticism of oil companies is boring and almost childish in the way it deflects responsibility.
The geopolitics of energy: What's easy to forget about subsidies is that enormous shock the western world has gone through in 1973 - suddenly the oil stopped flowing and leaders everywhere figured out how vulnerable industrial societies are to even slight disruptions in supply. We also have to consider the security and moral implications of relying on Saudi Arabia and Russia for most of our oil needs - claiming that politicians are supply corrupted by oil money just shows a lack of appreciation for the complexity of the situation.
Eating meat is bad for the climate (methane emissions - you know the drill) - if you consume meat again after reading this, please don't blame it on politics, McDonald's or a lack of knowledge.
And yeah 'democracy' the term the US used to invade countless of countries in the name of freedom, peace and democracy. What were the wars really about the last 20 to maybe 50 years? About private interest of oil.
The US democracy is nothing more then big industries calling the shots. Spreading so much propaganda people don't know what to believe any more.
50 years ago presidents were already shouting that they were going to cut back on fossil fuels. What happend there? If the US really was a democracy you would have had free healthcare by now. It's nothing more then a smoke screen.
And by now with the help of social media propaganda has become more of a psychological weapon. They know exactly what triggers specific individuals and how to steer them. If we keep trying to fool our self with this believe that people should just be come magically immune to propaganda and advertisement we are pretty domed.
No one "knew" about climate change in 1986. It took 20+ years of research to gather and analyze enough evidence to prove such an enormous claim, that humans had been inadvertently geoengineering the planet. Also shell employs tens of thousands of people - this myth comes from one internal communication that maybe a dozen eyes at most even saw.
It’s widely asserted that Exxon knew about what they are doing back in 1970s.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
Exxon having a "oh fuck" moment where they told their workers to stop working, their customers that there is no product to sell etc. seems something so extremely hard to pull off even if all of upper and middle-management wanted to do the right thing, I can't see how they could have.
I always imagine what would happen if the "5G/Radio is bad for you" crowd was proven right by people at Nokia. What would a realistic while morally sound strategy have looked like?
If this is just an inherent condition of humans working together in groups, shouldn't we rather put the blame on the regulators for ignoring the science and accepting the bribes for this long?
Case in point, from the article:
>present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical
Yet decades later that window continues to shift. This was an unverified theory in the 70s, and rightly so - we had spatially sparse measurements at the very tail end of a time series which naturally cycles on the order of hundreds to millions of years. For example a consensus has only recently formed that the oceans have been absorbing energy and delaying atmpspheric temperature rise.
Finally, the sources for that Scientific American are InsideClimate and Greenpeace, which are at least as biased as any oil company, just in reverse. I know that oil companies are the Philip Morris du jure, but this article is just retroactive demonization.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814....