Crayefish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:06 pm
randoskier wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:56 pm
mca80 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:56 pm
Your jet-setting would not be possible without these evil companies and the consequent climate change. Maybe give that a thought.
It would indeed be possible as large commercial aircraft would have electric propulsion by now. I know now you are now going to say- "Well how do you make that electricity?" Nuclear power, and wind (hydro-power on rivers is very destructive).
Ah, but usable wind power is just a myth put out by the global jacket manufacturers (funded by dentists), to sell more jackets.
Although, have you not noticed that wind turbines always seem to appear in the windy places? Coincidence? These giant cooperate fans are actually responsible for the wind (but no chilling). Most likely powered by hot air, from forums such as this.
Keep drilling holes and sucking up the oil dude. Shell is a disgrace (and threat) to humanity and continues needlessly destroying the Earth's climate, air-quality, and natural areas (Amazon-basin crude anyone?). Your company is run by obfuscating liars who do not honor their commitments, obligations, or pledges. Example 1:
Bloomberg News: Katharine Gemmell and William Mathis Published Feb 08, 2023
(Bloomberg) — Shell Plc’s board faces a new front in climate litigation as a group of frustrated shareholders sue the oil giant’s directors in the UK.
Two years after a Dutch court ordered Shell to slash its emissions, the group of investors are filing the first lawsuit of its kind against 11 members of the board, accusing them of failing to manage the company’s climate risks.
Environmental law firm Client Earth is bringing the suit against Shell’s board at London’s High Court, arguing that the their failure to approve an energy transition strategy that aligns with the Paris Agreement on global warming amounts to a breach of a director’s legal duties.
“The board is persisting with a transition strategy that is fundamentally flawed, leaving the company seriously exposed to the risks that climate change poses to Shell’s future success – despite the board’s legal duty to manage those risks,” said Paul Benson, a senior lawyer at Client Earth.
The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 with a goal of slowing global warming to well below 2C, compared to pre-industrial levels. With record temperatures across much of the planet in 2022, and a series of catastrophic weather events, the severe effects of climate change are already being felt.
Trying to hold board members legally accountable for their companies’ contributions to climate change marks a fresh strategy as lawyers and campaigners increasingly turn to the courts to place some of the blame for the climate crisis on Big Oil. In the Netherlands at least, activists have had success.
Shell was ordered in 2021 by a court in The Hague to slash its greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. It’s appealing the ruling as the court’s order is an acceleration of an existing strategy there are aspects of it that are just not feasible, Shell argues.
Renewables Pause
Wael Sawan, who took over as Shell’s chief executive officer in January, said he plans to grow the company’s natural gas business while Shell pauses growth in spending on its renewables unit. The CEO is focused on delivering value for shareholders.
“Our philosophy has been a real pivot toward energy transition investments,” Sawan said in a call with reporters on Feb. 2. “But we will make sure that those investments go into the areas where we can see line of sight toward attractive returns to be able to reward our shareholders.”
The lawsuit, which also alleges the directors failed to comply with the Hague ruling, is being brought by institutional investors including pension-fund manager London LGPS CIV Ltd, Nest, Swedish pension fund AP3, and Danske Bank Asset Management. Together the plaintiffs hold over 12 million shares in the company.
Akademiker Pension, a Danish pension fund which completely divested from Shell in 2019 to protect from climate risks, said if the lawsuit is successful then the company would become an attractive investment again.
