190 points
*

Shell made 40 billion in profits in 2022. 100 million is one quarter of one percent of that. That’s what they couldn’t spare to even look like they were trying to help the environment. The things that should be done to these executives would probably get me banned from Lemmy if I said. Fuck these villainous asshats with broken glass.

permalink
report
reply
61 points
*

The things that should be done to these executives would probably get me banned from Lemmy if I said.

Funny you say that. I was banned from Reddit for suggesting that suicidal people should take oil-ceos with them instead of wasting their death. Of course I learned my lesson and won’t do that again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Sorry, all we have is school shooters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

don’t forget crazy old guys at public venues!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

While a nice thought I guess, it would change nothing as they would just hire the next greedy guy in line and on and on it goes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

i dunno, i’m not encouraging anyone to take to arms, but it’s exactly the kind of shit that happened a lot in the end of the 1800’s, beginning of the 1900’s. Anarchists directly attacking high-ups with terrorist attacks, ignorant to the working class people, is arguably one of the reasons why for example the general populace got the right to vote, the christian churches started trying to come up with alternatives to socialism/anarchism (rerum novarum) and why high-ups like bismark introduced ideas like pension, krankenkasse etc. I don’t understand the general aimlessness of all the mass shootings in the USA. “i wanna make a point instead of going out silently on my own, but the only people i can take with me are my peers, no higher ups”?

TL;DR greedy guys do get scared if their jobs become too dangerous in an destabilized society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

People really don’t realise/want to see the scale of the problem.
There are nearly 3000 billionaires in the world, at least six of them are worth more than a hundred billion.
Each.
The amount of money other resources, and power these people hold and hoard is literally unfathomable.
How do you even visualise 12.2 trillion dollars?
No amount of personal “every little helps” can make a dent in that.
People need to get their heads out of the sand (or in some cases the boot out of their mouth) and start putting the energy and time they waste on pointless exercises in “personal responsibility”, and instead invest them in holding those who are actually responsible, accountable.
The system that not only allows, but enables and encourages billionaires to exist needs to be abolished, and their resources need to be redistributed and put towards building a better world for all of society, globally, which they could easily do.
But they won’t do that willingly, nor will they let you vote them away.
I know it’s an uncomfortable realisation, but it’s reality, and the quicker people come to accept it, the sooner we unite to tear them down.
Don’t forget - revolutions aren’t just about violence on the front line (and eventually on the billionaires’ door steps), they are also about solidarity and supporting those on the front line (be it protesting or striking or other direct action), but also about supporting your community every day, donating and volunteering what and where you can (directly where possible rather than via large organisations with advertising budgets and highly paid execs), lifting each other up, helping with meals or with childcare, teach, create posters, propagandise, everyone can find the right roll for them. Strong communities and dual power (communal structures to replace state-capitalist ones) are a necessary basis for a better, co operative future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Looking at that visualisation of a trillion really puts it into perspective when an extra $20 note can change my whole week

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You’ve got my vote!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Oh, thanks, though I’m definitely more of a behind the scenes person.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

To them it’s all about the money. They don’t give a shit about us, the ignorant moronic cunts. They should be offsetting all carbon emissions they ever created, but instead we have this flimsy corporate bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Economics is the only answer. Tax the rich and their products.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

CO2 offsets don’t work and aren’t a solution to our problem. Shell is just opting not to waste their money on useless projects.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Are they doing something effective instead?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Making shareholders money!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
97 points
*

CO2 “offsets” have always been bullshit green washing. The only way to regulate emissions is by directly regulating emissions. Not coming up with elaborate loopholes.

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

Hey, I purchased a palm oil farm in Gabon pristine African forest land, and without getting these carbon credits for not cutting it down, I’d cut it down every single year

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

Is it even possible for a gas company to offset CO2 emissions? They would have to charge insane amounts

permalink
report
reply
16 points

It’s not possible for anyone to offset CO2 because that’s just not how CO2 works. If its going into the air it doesn’t matter how much money moves around in the background, it’s still going into the air. Carbon offsets were never going to accomplish anything because physics don’t work that way

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You could create a chemical reaction that transform it to carbon and O2?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s pretty much what a tree is. But then it dies and burns/decomposes and it goes back in the atmosphere. It’s temporary storage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I mean sure, but that’s not what carbon offsets are doing

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Not really, because there are different “scopes” of emissions when declaring offsets:

Scope 1: emissions done directly during normal operations

Scope 2: emissions from the suppliers, transport and resourcing of raw materials etc.

Scope 3: indirect emissions caused by the use of the product and other effects the company is responsible for.

Obviously fossil fuel companies like Shell mostly have Scope 3 emissions. Barely any company that declares offsets even considers Scope 3 emissions though.

So all companies out there that even say they 100% offset, often just mean Scope 1 emissions. That’s basically systemic green washing.

Also a lot of the offsets are nearly useless, so even if Scope 1 and 2 are offset you gotta subtract 90% ineffectiveness from the amount.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Agreed, I feel like they probably abandoned the plan because they realized $100M wasn’t enough…

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

No, they probably abandoned it because they only said they would do it because they thought it would increase their public appearance. Once they got the boost from saying they’d do it, if they just silently back out, it’s unlikely that people notice and/or care anymore… That’s just how advertising works.

They probably never had any intention of actually following through to begin with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I mean, it’s probably a little bit of both. It’s not like people will just stop buying gas in the near and medium-term, and once they got the goodwill and looked at their bottom line they realized that they could just keep the goodwill AND the money. Classic mega corporation move

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I’ll eat my fucking hat if Shell’s follow-up here is to invest more money instead of less, absent state consequences forcing them to behave.

They are in the business of selling virgin oil. Anything they spend towards decarbonization hurts the selling of virgin oil. They know it. The rest of this shit is just advertising and they will terminate the campaign as soon as it stops performing. They can just do more adbuys for advertorial content through the NYT if there’s any backlash.

permalink
report
parent
reply

They made $40 billion in profit on oil and gas in 2022 and they can’t even be arsed to spend 0.25% to pretend to be doing something to reduce the rate of their eco-cide

permalink
report
reply
29 points

from june 2022 to june 2023 shell did $365 billion in revenue. the amount dedicated this effort is .027%. one dollar of every three thousand six hundred and fifty.

permalink
report
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 7.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 9.7K

    Posts

  • 117K

    Comments