Meteorologist Ben Van Burden who was also the CEO of the second-largest carbon-polluting company.
Pictures: Ben Stansall (Getty Images)
Big oil officials want us to know we need them.
In an interview with Axis in HBO Sunday Shell CEO Ben Van Burden Said that corporations like his must be an integral part of the transformation away from the polluting energy that has cut billions.
“What I often think is inadequately understood is that companies like ours are absolutely needed to solve the world’s problems.”
In fact, how can we actually save the climate without their expertise on climate change? Shell has spent more than 100 years producing waste energy. Among the oil companies owned by investors are responsible for the shell The second largest share Carbon pollution has been emitted since 1885. And he knows a couple of things about the mess we’re making Van Burden Dr. The shell is already there Work on it clean.
“I think the ultimate thing that people need to do about climate change is get what we say and we’re actually making progress,” he said of climate change.
Of course, Shell KneeDeadly effects w Its products from decades ago. But let’s focus on the present. J.Last year, the company announced it was a Plan to do “net zero emission energy business” By 2050.
G / O can get media commission
That plan Included Continuing to expand Natural gas, which Not only the source of carbon dioxide, but also methane, a greenhouse gas that is 60 times more planet-warming than carbon in the short term. It is Depending on the unproven Carbon capture and storage technology And problematic Plant planting plan. A report that Investigate the climate plan of oil giants Shell plans are found to be “ultimately inadequate” among the 10 metrics. (This is only “insufficient” for the other two metrics).
Okay, but forget the present, it’s actually everything in the future, and iIt only takes time to transform what could be one of the biggest polluters in history Next to the shell.
“They’ll see us do the right thing,” Van said Turn Told Axios
The right thing, There may be some arguments, Fossil fuel extraction is over. Is this the right thing we can expect to see in Shell? All right, not all right.
When Axius asked, Van Burden Confirmed that the agency will not promise to reduce it Produce fossil fuels – instead, it will “Focus on demand.” Of the shell The plan is to continue producing dirty fuel, but put pressure on consumers (Some are already doing it). Oh, and it will Little money in renewable energy, But Still just be one Small fractions The total investment of the company. The most important thing is not to promote survival, it provides a little consumer choice, right?
All of this is going to start making a difference pRetty soon. (Probably.) In the next decade, Van Burden told Axios that more than half of the company’s power would be clean. Of course, we don’t really get a clue about what counts as clear. Does it include gas? Who knows! But it certainly seems to depend on the possibilities Of the company Recent verbs
Shell made this known at a recent shareholder meeting To notice Decreased emission intensity It produces fuel By 20% before the end of the decade, urging shareholders to approve the approach. However, the intensity of carbon – the amount of pollution produced per unit of energy can be reduced Still allows the overall emissions to increase.
Although this is normal. Van Burden told Axios that fossil fuels would be needed almost “for a long time” if not forever. CElite scientists think so A very bad idea that could The onset of environmental disasters, And they have modeled how to avoid (hint: involved) The end Production of fossil fuels). But then, They do not run a multinational corporation that is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas sales and has a history of acting in bad faith.