I really like the kyak with the shell pirate flag. :pirate
Click here to see the pic
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/17/shell-accused-of-strategy-risking-catastrophic-climate-change
Quote
Shell accused of strategy risking catastrophic climate change
Environmentalists say presumption of global temperature rise to 4C undermines multinational's ability to talk with authority on climate change
Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of pursuing a strategy that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal document acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.
A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification.
Instead, the New Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C.
The revelations come ahead of the annual general meeting of Shell shareholders in the Netherlands on Tuesday, where the group has accepted a shareholder resolution demanding more transparency about the group's impact on climate change.
Hundreds of environmentalists took to the seas off Seattle in kayaks, canoes and paddleboards on Sunday to protest against the company's's controversial plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean. The "Shell No" protest was held close to where Shell's Polar Pioneer drilling rig is docked. One banner read: "We can't burn all the oil on the planet and still live on it."
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.
But an analysis of Shell's New Lens planning document points to an acceptance that world temperatures will rise to a level that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues would have a severe and widespread impact. A 4C global rise by 2100 would entail a sea level rise of between 52cm and 98cm, leading to widespread coastal flooding. There would be widespread risk of animal and plant extinctions and global agriculture would be severely hit. A 4C average would also mask more severe local impacts: the Arctic and western and southern Africa could experience warming up to 10C.
The Shell document says: "Both our (oceans and mountains) scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated 450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C."
It adds: "We also do not see governments taking steps now that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario."
Environmentalists said the presumptions undermine Shell's ability to talk with authority on climate change.
Charlie Kronick, climate campaigner at campaign group Greenpeace, said Shell and IEA saw fossil fuels continuing to be burned, with the earth facing temperature rises of 3.7°C or 4°C in the short term, mounting to 6°C later on.
"What I don't see is a realisation from Shell about what exactly would happen to its business if climate change escalated dramatically beyond what is safe with all the negative consequences in the world for food and water never mind energy," said Kronick.
Louise Rouse, an investor relations specialist and consultant to Greenpeace, said the New Lens document undermined Shell's claim that ongoing oil and gas exploration helps raise living standards in the developing world by supplying the energy for rapidly expanding economies.
"There is an incoherence at best between oil companies on the one hand positioning themselves as being on the side of the world's developing countries and while on the other actively pursuing strategies which will entail catastrophic climate change which we already know is having a significant impact on the global south," she said.
Friends of the Earth in the Netherlands, which has carried out its own review of activities by the Anglo-Dutch oil group, said the company often argues that it is moving away from oil towards cleaner gas but has often concentrated on the most carbon intensive forms of gas such as liquefied natural gas.
Shell's carbon dioxide emissions have risen in 2014 and are set to increase further as it expands the business through a planned £47bn takeover of rival BG.
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."
The Guardian's Keep it in the Ground campaign seeks to persuade the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation to divest themselves of their shareholdings in fossil fuel companies. According to the latest figures, Wellcome held a stake of £142m in Shell as of September 2014. The Gates Foundation held £6m of Shell's shares at the time of its latest tax filing in 2013.
The Anglo-Dutch group said 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.
It added: "By combining BG's portfolio and skills set with Shell's capabilities, we can deliver a step change in the growth priorities for both of our companies. This means more deep water and more LNG, plays where we have strong profitability and capabilities."
Editor's note: This story is part of Keep it in the Ground, a campaign launched by the Guardian in March calling on the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation to shift their investments from fossil fuels. To date more than 200,000 people have signed our petition. Both the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation say they carefully screen the companies they invest in to ensure they act in line with their goals. This piece, and others to follow this week, are the result of Guardian reporters' investigations into some of the companies the foundations invest in, revealing how they operate both environmentally and socially - Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor in chief.
This article makes no fucking sense.
I don't understand. What does it mean by "pursuing a strategy" that leads to a global temperature rise? Shell doesn't actually use the petroleum. Consumers like me do. It isn't as if Shell has control over the huge amount of human activities that collectively lead to global warming.
Shell's scientists also say that oil is not addictive. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Monoriu on May 17, 2015, 11:13:37 PM
I don't understand. What does it mean by "pursuing a strategy" that leads to a global temperature rise? Shell doesn't actually use the petroleum. Consumers like me do. It isn't as if Shell has control over the huge amount of human activities that collectively lead to global warming.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:05:03 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 17, 2015, 11:13:37 PM
I don't understand. What does it mean by "pursuing a strategy" that leads to a global temperature rise? Shell doesn't actually use the petroleum. Consumers like me do. It isn't as if Shell has control over the huge amount of human activities that collectively lead to global warming.
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.
If Shell has a strategy to increase demand for oil and gas products, the article has not spelled it out. It is odd to claim that such a strategy exists but at the same time fail to provide any details about it.
I am a Shell shareholder, BTW :contract:
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:32:40 AM
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
It does feel a bit strange for you to tell me that not having kids is somehow a problem :P
Quote from: Monoriu on May 18, 2015, 01:38:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:32:40 AM
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
It does feel a bit strange for you to tell me that not having kids is somehow a problem :P
Not having anything in life, other than collecting money for retirement, is a problem. I may be wrong in this about you, but at least that's the persona you have been consistently projecting on this forum - i.e. that you have nothing that you are passionate about, other than watching your retirement fund grow. I can only imagine how empty your life will be the day after you retire.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 02:44:03 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 18, 2015, 01:38:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:32:40 AM
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
It does feel a bit strange for you to tell me that not having kids is somehow a problem :P
Not having anything in life, other than collecting money for retirement, is a problem. I may be wrong in this about you, but at least that's the persona you have been consistently projecting on this forum - i.e. that you have nothing that you are passionate about, other than watching your retirement fund grow. I can only imagine how empty your life will be the day after you retire.
You must have missed the anime thread :contract:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11163.0.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F65321l_zps3jz2asxf.jpg&hash=81cef9b1312545b8effef6d024623495b51c1e9b) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/65321l_zps3jz2asxf.jpg.html)
I dunno, my impression is that Mono is a globe-trotting world traveler compared to most of us. He and his wife seem to have a passion for travel, and eating well on those travels. Perhaps not everyone's thing, but if it makes them happy and content, that's all that matters.
And I would gather that retirement means they would be able to continue that unimpeded by the drudgery of work. Sounds typically American...or human, for that matter. :P
Actually, on thinking about it, if we did a poll of "Who appears to be the happiest/mellow/most-content-with-life person on Languish?", Mono would make my top 5. Maybe even number 2 after Cal.
Of course, it's not hard to top that poll with this crowd (myself included). :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 18, 2015, 02:57:58 AM
Actually, on thinking about it, if we did a poll of "Who appears to be the happiest/mellow/most-content-with-life person on Languish?", Mono would make my top 5. Maybe even number 2 after Cal.
Of course, it's not hard to top that poll with this crowd (myself included). :P
The only poll that matters is "who is the richest languishite", and Martinus is a strong contender :secret:
Ed is the most successful person on the forum. Meri is second.
It is an interesting campaign..........let's try and stop Shell from producing oil and leave the business to those nice Russians and Saudis :hmm: :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 18, 2015, 04:08:29 AM
It is an interesting campaign..........let's try and stop Shell from producing oil and leave the business to those nice Russians and Saudis :hmm: :huh:
Sometimes it is awfully tempting to think most of these green organisations are Russian agents because their agenda in Europe seems to be increasing Russian marketshares in the energy sector through fire and blood if need be.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 02:44:03 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 18, 2015, 01:38:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:32:40 AM
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
It does feel a bit strange for you to tell me that not having kids is somehow a problem :P
Not having anything in life, other than collecting money for retirement, is a problem. I may be wrong in this about you, but at least that's the persona you have been consistently projecting on this forum - i.e. that you have nothing that you are passionate about, other than watching your retirement fund grow. I can only imagine how empty your life will be the day after you retire.
Ironic post of the month?
I found the logical solution to peak oil. Obviously I'd combine it with a time machine to speed the process up.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10420004_10153885251498986_7480573019549413391_n.jpg?oh=bcb49b16bfb10664650e6c5e000a1159&oe=55C4AF1C&__gda__=1439804771_60431c486bff3cad229501c40f591559)
Kyak? Is tha Kyuss's brother? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:05:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:32:40 AM
I really look forward to your retirement, when after lifetime of slaving away at the office you decide you have nothing to live for - no passion, no accomplishment, not even kids.
Or alternatively, you could change the subject and hope no one notices.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2015, 11:07:11 PM
This article makes no fucking sense.
As someone concerned about climate change, I am often dismayed by how goddamn nonsensical the arguments of even moderate environmentalists are.
Quote from: Warspite on May 18, 2015, 07:23:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2015, 11:07:11 PM
This article makes no fucking sense.
As someone concerned about climate change, I am often dismayed by how goddamn nonsensical the arguments of even moderate environmentalists are.
No shit. It is ridiculous how stupid they can be - anyone who thinks the solution to climate change is political or social pressure on oil producers is just obtuse.
Quote from: Warspite on May 18, 2015, 07:23:57 AM
As someone concerned about climate change, I am often dismayed by how goddamn nonsensical the arguments of even moderate environmentalists are.
Agreed. What is worse, though, is that at this point calling them on their bullshit gets you labelled a "denier".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 07:03:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:05:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 18, 2015, 08:56:44 AM
I don't even understand the article. It's sort of all over the place.
Memo leaks which says Shell expects temperature to rise 4 degrees.
Retardo-greens get angry at Shell for trying to raise temperature 4 degrees.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 18, 2015, 04:08:29 AM
It is an interesting campaign..........let's try and stop Shell from producing oil and leave the business to those nice Russians and Saudis :hmm: :huh:
Well, that really is the gist of it, isn't it. If say Scotland/the UK and Norway stopped pumping oil out of the bottom of the sea, the business would enrich Russia and certain states most aren't comfortable with supporting financially, and which again support some fairly unlikeable organisations.
I'd say it's a dilemma, despite it destroying all my "green" credentials.
I'd also say that pulling out of coal might be a better start than dumping oil and gas right away. There's an enormous hunger for energy in the world. Not all countries have the potential for hydro-electric power (which in itself leaves huge scars in the terrain), nor do everyone have the ability to make solar power work or be cost-efficient. The lower oil price today will continue to make oil and gas more cost-efficient than a lot of other energy sources, and unless the entire market economy is brought down tomorrow, consumers will choose based on price. Because electricity, for instance, is something that's hard to provide with better quality than other providers.
I can contribute a bit here; I work for a guy that used to work for Shell doing just that - scenario planning (my secondary job is collaborating with a business school). Shell does shedloads of these scenarios, and they are not "forecasts", not at all. One of the things they always say upfront is that they are NOT forecasts. As a company they are devoted to design differing - but feasible - scenarios and see how the company should react if those came to pass, in order to be prepared, or to extract changes/improvements in how they operate that can be applied right now. This can't be read as "SHELL EXPECTS GLOBAL WARMING TO GET WORSE AND ISN'T TELLING ANYONE!!!"
The way they work, - they make sets of scenarios to cover all bases, not a single one - there are probably alternative scenarios where there's less gloom and doom - but those don't make for a sensational headline.
Quote from: Warspite on May 18, 2015, 07:23:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2015, 11:07:11 PM
This article makes no fucking sense.
As someone concerned about climate change, I am often dismayed by how goddamn nonsensical the arguments of even moderate environmentalists are.
I noticed the UK have "Greens" as well now. In Norway, the Green Party wants to eliminate oil production from day one. Their other policies are non-existent.
Personally, I tend to look to NGOs with enough clout to get financial support for their papers. Norway's ZERO (for zero emissions) is actually quite good. They acknowledge that climate change is real, and that we have to act, but unlike a lot of other greens they see a shift towards renewables rather than going back to the 18th century and eat gruel. In Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada, the US, there are forests that can both act as CO2 containers and be exploited the same way as we use non-renewable sources like oil now, given the technology available for refining wood pulp.
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.
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."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 07:03:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:05:03 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2015, 10:45:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 18, 2015, 08:56:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 07:03:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2015, 01:05:03 AM
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:
QuoteShell 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."
I don't see how it makes any difference whether it's a scenario or a prediction.
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2015, 10:45:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 10:54:21 AM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on May 18, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
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.
Mad Max movies are a prediction too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 11:28:53 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2015, 11:46:32 AM\
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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 18, 2015, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2015, 11:46:32 AM\
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.
Drill baby, drill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2015, 10:48:40 AM
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."
I wonder when your friend went to UBC. At the turn of the century using forests as a carbon sink in the northern hemisphere was a very popular idea. Particularly here in Canada. Canada's early carbon reduction goals were significantly boosted at the time by calculations regarding how much carbon our forests would store. The claim was valid based on the science done in the last few decades of the last century; however, the claim did not factor in the impact that climate change was already having on our forests.
Two main factors had turned our forests from a net carbon sink to a net carbon emitter. The first was the a pine beetle that had once been killed off in the cold winters of your northern areas (where we had extensive pine forests) was no surviving and multiplying. Huge areas of our forests were killed off as a result.It was about a 15 year process to try to harvest as much of that deadwood and try to extract some value. This die off, which continues today as the beetle expands its territory as temperatures continue to warm, has released a significant amount of carbon. The second factor is that increased temperatures and lower snow accumulations has significantly increased the number and size of forest fires which is obviously causes another dump of carbon.
I agree with Warspite's comment. Climate change is too serious of an issue to have this sort of shoddy reporting.
We gotz lotsa trees down here. Once you get out of downtown it's trees, trees, trees everywhere you look. I cut some down in my front yard but I'll plant some more once I get the stumps taken care of.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 11:50:47 AM
We gotz lotsa trees down here.
Yes you do. The US has almost as much forest as Canada.
Pretty much the entire state of West Virginia is one big forest aside from the tiny oases of Charleston, Morgantown, Huntington, and Wheeling.
Quote from: Caliga on May 19, 2015, 12:51:09 PM
Pretty much the entire state of West Virginia is one big forest aside from the tiny oases of Charleston, Morgantown, Huntington, and Wheeling.
I wonder whether the US forests are still operating as a net sink or whether they too are a net emitter now.