take their money and arrest those responsible

Oil companies: "It'S nOt Us! If YoU dIdN't BuY tHe OiL tHeN wE WoUlDnT sElL iT!"

(Politician introduces bill to cut emissions and reduce oil usage)

Oil Companies: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Not like that!! Quick, fund Republicans and anti-climate change "science" we can't have them switching to anything else!!"

45

Government: it's illegal not to own a car.

8

Is this actual operational emissions or just how much oil they sell?

23

"Annual metric tons CO₂eq" aka Yearly greenhouse gas emissions in metric tons

5
- And I'm asking what kind of emissions those are. Do they include the indirect emissions from sold fossil fuels or not
  
  27
- average us persons carbon footprint is 16 tons, worldwide its 4 Europe averages 2-5 tons just FYI
  
  2

Who buys Shell products?

17

Who has for decades supressed the true extend of the damage being done and made sure there where no alternatives?

45
- Who votes/voted against taking at least some regulatory/industrial action (in the US)? Who voted for politicians who de-neutralised and split the US news landscape?
  
  -10
They have been the worlds largest company. So it's more or less everyone

13
Your uncle, your sister, and all your neighbors.

5

it was actually me... I used a plastic straw the other day... I'm sorry guys

13

I'm calling Trudeau on you >:(

3
Why would you use plastic straws, metal straws are superior

1

How are they measuring the emissions? Where does this data come from?

8

The dutch! Why am I not surprised it's those two faced, bicycle-peddaling, oil mongerers. To war!

8

Shell has been completely british for a few years now.

11

I don't think anything positive would be accomplished by taking all of the companies' money and arresting their executives. Arresting the executives won't do anything because they would just hire new executives. If you bankrupt the companies, other companies will emerge to take their place, so long as there is a demand for the product.

7

Induced Demand exists and fossil infrastructure keeps nominal cost down, while externalising fossil impact.

Big Fossil must pay, consumers must pay (those who can't switch must be helped) because climate costs will appear anyways and they must be paid to keep civilisation afloat eventually.

Fossil fuel that is too cheap is a regulatory issue of internalising true costs of burning fossil fuels.

17
- The demand exists because there is machinery all around the world that was designed to run on fuels derived from fossil hydrocarbons. To eliminate the demand, all of that machinery must be replaced with alternatives that do not run on fossil fuels.
  
  Some of the alternatives exist now and are available on the market today, although some are still prohibitively expensive for many, and not all of the newer machines have all the necessary supporting infrastructure. Much more needs to be done by governments to make non fossil fuel machinery accessible and affordable, and to rapidly build out the necessary infrastructure.
  
  Some of the existing machinery does not yet have a non fossil fuel alternative available. For that machinery, fossil fuels are still necessary. Once again, governments must do more, to help speed up R&D on new technologies, and to make sure those technologies will be affordable and accessible once they are ready for market deployment, and, again, that all the necessary supporting infrastructure is in place.
  
  6
And those companies, with the right laws on the books, would hopefully think twice about breaking said laws for fear of their executives going to jail.

Potential executives would think twice about joining companies that might be prone to being sent to jail.

This example always gets brought up, that people will just replace them, but they won't if we de-incentive it and continue to enforce it. You can't stop murder, but you can make it easier to catch murderers and place enough consequences that the average person doesn't feel inclined to commit it. Sure, then there's career criminals, there's people who would see that punishment and still go for it, but note that the number would be drastically reduced than if we just let them continue on unimpeded.

2
Lemmy refuses to understand that ignoring the climate change is the most democratically chosen policy on earth.

Everyone and their dog are driving places every day instead of cycling or taking a bus. And it's not because those options don't exist. It's because driving is convenient.

In most developing countries 70-80% of the population will be against gasoline engine being outright banned. And yet lemmy keeps thinking it's big oil that is the problem.

Delusional kids thinking they're communist.

-2
- If we spent as much on public transport as we do subsidising the oil-based status quo, public transport would be convenient too.
  
  7

It's not me? Ah good, so I don't have to quit being Shell's CEO :)

7

Lucky you

1

You'd have to look at historical emissions to get a really clear picture.

4

100%

-5

Alright, let's see their shareholders.

3

Total hiding somewhere

3

Spoiler alert: if you drive a car and buy gas from one of these companies...

1

I hate this take because wtf else are the regular people supposed to do? The people in charge have systematically dismantled every single other form of transportation from trains to busses to bicycles and then placed everywhere you can live far away from everywhere you want to go and everywhere you can make money. Of course you have to drive everywhere! And then it's also our fault the climate is collapsing?? Like I'm just trying to make it to TOMORROW.

6
- Look, I know it's hard because the world is designed around cars, especially the US and Canada. I get that most people had no say in the world getting to be this way. They were born into a world where cars dominate transportation. The oil companies spent millions lobbying for a world that works this way, systematically working to destroy the other options.
  
  But, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility. That doesn't mean that you can blame the companies that make the gas that you use and take no responsibility yourself. In particular, the best-selling vehicles in the US are huge pick-up trucks. Almost nobody who buys one of those truly needs it. They're burning twice as much fuel as necessary just to have some kind of status symbol. In addition to that, the way most people use their cars is extremely inefficient. Carpooling is rare, most people move tons of steel and rubber around just for their own personal use. People also choose to live in the suburbs where there are no public transit options, instead of a smaller place in the city where there are buses.
  
  I hate this take that it's the oil companies that are responsible for climate change. Yes, they lobbied hard to make the world we live in now. But, at the same time, if they had $0 in sales, they'd emit $0 in pollution because there would be no justification to run all their various machines, plants, etc.
  
  Consumers have choices. If you truly need a vehicle, maybe it could be a small hatchback with a manual transmission instead of an F-150. Maybe you don't need to drive your own personal car to work, and could instead share a car ride with a cow-orker. Maybe you don't need to drive out to eat, or drive to the movies, and could stay home instead. Maybe you could use the bus sometimes. Yeah, a lot of these choices are inconvenient, and not using your car means using up a lot of your precious time. But, that's a choice you're making. Remember, when you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler!
  
  3

You're eating up Saudi propoganda.

1

Looks like all employees of Shell need to go to jail.

-4

Saudi Aramco is publicly owned. The money is spent on infrastructure and welfare for Saudis. It is not like the other private companies.

-8