Shell internal document acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C

[Admiral Yi]

A classmate of mine from the Kennedy school went on to get a degree at UBC in forestry or environmentalism or something like that.  He told me that when he started talking about things such as Norgy mentioned people would say "oh, you're one of those pay to pollute guys."

[Martinus]

Are you so dumb that you think it is not in an interest of a supplier to increase demand for its own product? It's like saying McDonald's has no vested interest in peddling junk, unhealthy food to people, because the company does not eat the burgers.

It's generally a good idea to understand an issue before you start tossing out insults.

Are you saying I should read the article before responding to comments on it?

[celedhring]

This sounds like the routine ZOMG THE US IS PLANNING TO INVADE SWITZERLAND!!!! headlines you see every few years when some reporter notes that the US military has some plan stuffed in some file somewhere for, well, invading Switzerland.

Absolutely. It's just contingency planning.

[The Larch]

Are you so dumb that you think it is not in an interest of a supplier to increase demand for its own product? It's like saying McDonald's has no vested interest in peddling junk, unhealthy food to people, because the company does not eat the burgers.

It's generally a good idea to understand an issue before you start tossing out insults.

I don't even understand the article.  It's sort of all over the place.

I think it's sort of all over the place because it seems to have been patched together with plenty of tidbits from here and there, as it mixes several themes. It does point out that the document they cry wolf about is a scenario and not a prediction, though:

Shell declined to comment formally on the New Lens scenarios but oil industry experts said they were not meant to be a business blueprint. Instead, they represent "plausible assumptions and quantification" designed to make executives consider events that may be only remotely possible. The expert added: "Scenarios are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes."

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how it makes any difference whether it's a scenario or a prediction.

[derspiess]

This sounds like the routine ZOMG THE US IS PLANNING TO INVADE SWITZERLAND!!!! headlines you see every few years when some reporter notes that the US military has some plan stuffed in some file somewhere for, well, invading Switzerland.

My all-time fave was the "Hague Invasion Act" from a few years ago.  That was some good fun on EUOT.

[The Larch]

I don't see how it makes any difference whether it's a scenario or a prediction.

If it's an scenario it can be argued that it's wishful thinking. If it's a prediction then they had to think that it was a realistic possibility, and that undermines their public commitment to the fight against climate change.

[Admiral Yi]

If it's an scenario it can be argued that it's wishful thinking. If it's a prediction then they had to think that it was a realistic possibility, and that undermines their public commitment to the fight against climate change.

I don't see the connection. 

They are doing what they are doing, i.e moving from oil to gas.  Either that shows commitment or it doesn't.

A prediction based on what the world as a whole will do doesn't change that.

[lustindarkness]

Mad Max movies are a prediction too.

[grumbler]

I don't see the connection. 

They are doing what they are doing, i.e moving from oil to gas.  Either that shows commitment or it doesn't.

A prediction based on what the world as a whole will do doesn't change that.

Commitment is about a state of mind, not an isolated action.  If the company believes that the current course of action will result in catastrophe for many on the planet, their current actions show no particular commitment to anything but short-term profit.   

[Razgovory]

I'm concerned about global warming as the next guy, but we can't just say "no more using fossil fuels".  Creating mass starvation and and instability is not a good way to prevent mass starvation and instability caused by global warming.

[The Minsky Moment]

\
Commitment is about a state of mind, not an isolated action.  If the company believes that the current course of action will result in catastrophe for many on the planet, their current actions show no particular commitment to anything but short-term profit.

Which action in particular?
Looking at the article, these are the current actions it ascribes to Shell:

1) "the group has accepted a shareholder resolution demanding more transparency about the group's impact on climate change."

2). "Ben van Beurden, the Shell chief executive, has repeatedly stated that the fossil fuel giant is a responsible company that fully accepts the need to counter manmade global warming, has campaigned for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, and is moving its focus from oil to cleaner fuels such as gas."

3) "the BG takeover would expand its presence in controversial deep-water activities – many of the planet's untapped fossil fuel resources are now in ocean regions that are difficult to access – but said it would also increase its presence in liquefied natural gas, a cleaner fossil fuel than oil"

Of those, only (3) could arguably be motivated by short-term profit; but at worst it is a neutral event - shifting a set of assets from one holder to another.

[Norgy]

Given the 4 degree rise in temperature, those "untapped fossil fuel resources" will soon be quite a bit more accessible. Like Greenland and the Arctic.

[grumbler]

\
Commitment is about a state of mind, not an isolated action.  If the company believes that the current course of action will result in catastrophe for many on the planet, their current actions show no particular commitment to anything but short-term profit.

Which action in particular?
Looking at the article, these are the current actions it ascribes to Shell:

1) "the group has accepted a shareholder resolution demanding more transparency about the group's impact on climate change."

2). "Ben van Beurden, the Shell chief executive, has repeatedly stated that the fossil fuel giant is a responsible company that fully accepts the need to counter manmade global warming, has campaigned for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, and is moving its focus from oil to cleaner fuels such as gas."

3) "the BG takeover would expand its presence in controversial deep-water activities – many of the planet's untapped fossil fuel resources are now in ocean regions that are difficult to access – but said it would also increase its presence in liquefied natural gas, a cleaner fossil fuel than oil"

Of those, only (3) could arguably be motivated by short-term profit; but at worst it is a neutral event - shifting a set of assets from one holder to another.

Sorry, I should have said the course of action to which Yi referred.  I wasn't actually meaning to talking about any specific course of action, though it read that way.

[Ed Anger]

Drill baby, drill.