Read on Twitter
I wrote a bit about @shell's new scenarios: essentially, it's a project of setting boundaries of imagination, so we're not tempted to imagine the rapid closure of their business.
Hence: a HUGE amount of controversial natural and tech carbon removal.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-still-has-a-long-way-to-go-before-its-truly-on-board-with-climate-action/
Hence: a HUGE amount of controversial natural and tech carbon removal.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-still-has-a-long-way-to-go-before-its-truly-on-board-with-climate-action/
^^ Like so many other climate machines, there's a line we need to walk.
Some thing will be helpful, and on balance of probabilities, will exist in some limited way in the mix.
But those potential machines also become rhetorical engines of delay, distraction and denial.
Some thing will be helpful, and on balance of probabilities, will exist in some limited way in the mix.
But those potential machines also become rhetorical engines of delay, distraction and denial.
Yes, it is good that Shell are considering a 1.5C scenario. No, it is not good that in doing so, they propose planting trees that consume a Brazil's worth of land - a massive risk to vulnerable communities around the world.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-still-has-a-long-way-to-go-before-its-truly-on-board-with-climate-action/
https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-still-has-a-long-way-to-go-before-its-truly-on-board-with-climate-action/
Ultimately: the rapid decline of existing oil fields seems like a perfect test of sincerity. If you see that and think 'This is an opportunity to turn the screws on decarbonisation of transport', that makes sense.
If you see that and say 'this is an opportunity to delay' - errr
If you see that and say 'this is an opportunity to delay' - errr
What we are learning very quickly is that, after a decade of being lied to about zero carbon alternatives being expensive, we have been lied to about zero carbon alternatives being *slow*. Turns out gov't, industry and social levers work faster than we thought.
On a related note: you need to subscribe to Pete's Boiling Cold site, a truly constant source of reliable information on many of these issues.
As he points out below (I didn't know this!) Shell own 25% of the Gorgon CCS-mess: https://twitter.com/PeteMilne4/status/1359438708781449226
As he points out below (I didn't know this!) Shell own 25% of the Gorgon CCS-mess: https://twitter.com/PeteMilne4/status/1359438708781449226
As always, fantastically good @CarbonBrief analysis of the whole emissions removal component of these plans --->> https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell-says-new-brazil-sized-forest-would-be-needed-to-meet-1-5c-climate-goal?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210212&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily by @Josh_Gabbatiss
Important note: what they do with carbon removals *isn't weird* (this is bad) -->
Important note: what they do with carbon removals *isn't weird* (this is bad) -->
And a good thread about the magnitude of reductions from 'nature based solutions' -->> https://twitter.com/FuelOnTheFire/status/1360162616887418882
