123
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
123 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5183 readers
829 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They're not really "getting into solar and wind" — they're doing token quantities as a PR exercise, while putting almost everything into oil extraction.
Not sure where you or they got that info but I guarantee if you look deeper into what shell has invested in, they may not be investing directly in solar and wind but they are most definitely diversifying and investing in other companies that are doing alternative energy.
Here is a screenshot from Googles llm giving info on what shell has invested in. In 2022 they invested 3.5b in renewables. I searched for shells investment in renewable energy and got that.
For the record, I'm not defending shell and they should have been investing in and pushing us towards renewables decades ago. The point is that the Republicans for the most part aren't really against renewables, they are simply against anything a Democrat proposes even when it was originally their idea.
Also keep in mind that CNN is now an arm of the maggats. It hasn't been a reputable news organization for years. It started going downhill before John Stewart had his infamous appearance on crossfire and was recently bought by a pro Trump jackass.
They are. Just in tiny quantities compared with their investment in fossil fuel extraction:
Damn, you really want to pick at nits and argue.
Go back and read my original comment. I said they weren't fighting it as much, not they were all in and had gone full hippy with it.
I'm not surprised that there is a good chance they are over stating things but I didn't make any claims about what or how much they had invested. I responded to your need to argue.
On that note, I don't have time for someone who has to keep looking for things to argue about and pick apart statements while taking them out of context or completely misunderstanding them assuming you actually read them all just so they can be right and have the last word.
You have a nice day now. Maybe you can find someone else to argue with.