The likely outcomes of the current climate crisis :: Revision 1
The likely outcomes of the current climate crisis
I am webmaster of https://onaquietday.org. Here I am speculating on the likely outcomes of the current climate crisis. Please regard this post as draft and subject to change, revision or elaboration.
Writing in June 2023, the current situation is that the climate crisis is generally accepted as real, there are very few climate sceptics and instead there are mostly right-wing politicians but also others that campaign to stifle or delay meaningful climate action, the fossil fuel industry who are largely responsible for the climate crisis continuing to destroy the planet and profiteer in the process, scientists and others pleading for climate action. Extreme weather events are experienced worldwide which are expected to continue increasing, the 1.5 degree C goal of the Paris Agreement is likely to be passed within a few years.
There is currently some hostility to climate activists like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. I attribute this to the influence of the right-wing corporate press – GB News, Rupert Murdoch and Viscount Rothermere amoung others. As the climate is further damaged – and there’s only one way it’s going – the influence of these cnuts is likely to diminish as people recognise the shite they spew as exactly that.
People will come to realise that politicians and the tiny ruling elite that they serve have failed them as they experience more and harsher climate impacts actually over the next few years. Who will they turn to then? It’s obvious, isn’t it? We’re either going to end up co-operating to address the climate crisis or with authoritarianism protecting a tiny elite denying it.
While authoritarian actions are the current response and authoritarian parties are progressing in Europe, I regard this as temporary. Climate destruction affects everyone and people will come to realise that they must unite to defeat the climate destroyers. The only issue is that the longer it takes, the more damage our World suffers.
The likely outcomes of the current climate crisis
I am dizzy deep (not my real name and I seem to have many names ;), webmaster of https://onaquietday.org. Here I am speculating on the likely outcomes of the current climate crisis. Please regard this post as draft and subject to change.
Writing in June 2023, the current situation is that the climate crisis is generally accepted as real, there are very few climate sceptics and instead there are mostly right-wing politicians but also others that campaign to stifle or delay meaningful climate action, the fossil fuel industry who are largely responsible for the climate crisis continuing to destroy the planet and profiteer in the process, scientists and others pleading for climate action. Extreme weather events are experienced worldwide which are expected to continue increasing, the 1.5 degree C goal of the Paris Agreement is likely to be passed within a few years.
There is currently some hostility to climate activists like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. I attribute this to the influence of the right-wing corporate press – GB News, Rupert Murdoch and Viscount Rothermere amoung others. As the climate is further damaged – and there’s only one way it’s going – the influence of these cnuts is likely to diminish as people recognise the shite they spew as exactly that.
People will come to realise that politicians and the ruling elite that they serve have failed them as they experience more and harsher climate impacts actually over the next few years. Who will they turn to then? It’s obvious, isn’t it? We’re either going to end up co-operating to address the climate crisis or authoritarianism denying it. Authoritarianism is unlikely since it affects so many people and there is not a scapegoat other than the rich. I regard this as inevitable, the only issue is that the longer it takes, the more damage is done to our World.
In ‘Climate-Wrecking’ Reversal, Shell Ditches Plans for Oil Production Cut and Hikes Dividend
By JAKE JOHNSON Jun 14, 2023
Original article republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“It will always be profit over people and planet for polluters,” said one campaigner. “Shell simply cannot be trusted—with either their own meager targets or our futures.”
Shell announced Wednesday that it is raising payouts to wealthy shareholders and scrapping plans to cut oil production by up to 2% annually, a move that environmental groups said lays bare the futility of relying on fossil fuel corporations to voluntarily curb their climate-destroying activities.
The London-based company, which more than doubled its annual profits last year, said in a press release that it now intends to “achieve cash flow longevity” by keeping oil production stable until 2030 and boosting gas production, even as scientists say a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels is necessary to avert global climate destruction.
“It is unacceptable that Shell is betting on even more short-term returns to appease shareholders,” said Sjoukje van Oosterhout, Climate Case Shell’s lead researcher. “Shell is now throwing in the towel on reducing oil production and even scaling up gas production.”
Shell also announced Wednesday that it is hiking its dividend by 15%, a change that’s set to take effect this quarter. In an additional gift to shareholders, the company said it plans to buy back at least $5 billion of its own stock in the second half of 2023.
“Record profits, off the back of the energy crisis, should be boosting up green investment,” Jonathan Noronha-Gant, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, said in a statement Wednesday. “Instead it’s shareholder pay-outs and a doubling down on climate-wrecking fossil fuels.”
Shell had previously said its oil and gas production would fall by 1-2% each year through 2030. But as Bloombergreported, Shell justified the newly announced shift by claiming it “achieved its initial output-reduction plan—announced in 2021 amid a focus on cutting carbon emissions—faster than anticipated.”
Noronha-Gant called Shell’s announcement a “climate bombshell” that “exposes the hollowness behind the setting of such a target.”
“It will always be profit over people and planet for polluters,” Noronha-Gant said Wednesday. “Shell simply cannot be trusted—with either their own meager targets or our futures.”
Others responded with similar outrage. Climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote on Twitter that Shell CEO Wael Sawan “knows exactly what the consequences of this decision are.”
“People will die—are already dying,” McGuire tweeted. “I want to see him jailed—along with all the other CEOs who have been unequivocally complicit in crimes against humanity. And so should you.”
Shell’s announcement comes weeks after Carbon Brief released an analysis highlighting the oil giant’s tacit admission that limiting warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century means an “immediate end to fossil fuel growth.”
“Shell had previously claimed that oil and gas production could rise for another decade, even as warming was limited to 1.5°C,” Carbon Brief observed. “The dramatic shift in its new ‘Energy Security Scenarios’ is not explicitly acknowledged, but… is hidden in plain sight.”
“The immediate end to fossil fuel growth in Shell’s new 1.5°C scenario marks a dramatic shift from its earlier work, which had squared the circle between limiting warming to 1.5°C and continuing to expand oil and gas production by invoking implausibly-large forest expansion,” Carbon Brief added.
Shell insisted Wednesday that it is “aiming to achieve near-zero methane emissions by 2030” and “net-zero emissions by 2050,” but research released earlier this week showed that such commitments are often meaningless because companies rarely outline specific steps they plan to take to achieve their stated targets.
Last month, Friends of the Earth Netherlands published a report accusing Shell of overstating its spending on renewable energy solutions by including “the sale of flowers and sandwiches at its gas stations” in the total, along with “biofuels with a high carbon footprint.”
“The company continues to contribute to catastrophic climate change,” the group concluded.
Original article republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
‘Bombshell’ 1989 Shell Memo Features in New Court Filing Alleging Climate Deception
Document warning that civilisation could prove a “fragile thing” is used to bolster District of Columbia lawsuit against Big Oil.
In October 1989, Shell researchers wrote a confidential report warning that climate-fuelled migration could swamp borders in the United States, Soviet Union, Europe, and Australia. “Conflict would abound,” the document said. “Civilisation could prove a fragile thing.” Now, that memo — first reported by DeSmog and Dutch investigative journalism platform Follow The Money — features in a new court brief alleging that Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP knowingly concealed the climate hazards of their fossil fuel products for decades.
A group of climate disinformation researchers and nonprofits filed the brief on April 7 in support of a 2020 lawsuit brought by the District of Columbia, part of a wave of litigation by at least 20 U.S. states and cities seeking to hold the oil industry to account for climate damages.
The 50-page brief cites academic studies and media reports to show how the oil industry was warned about the risks posed by a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in the late 1950s. Companies such as Shell and ExxonMobil went on to develop detailed internal knowledge of the problem, while backing industry associations waging sophisticated campaigns to cast doubt on climate science, the brief argues.
“While their tactics have changed, Defendants’ overall strategy of deception continues to this day,” the brief said. “Defendants now acknowledge that the climate is changing and claim to be leaders in efforts to combat climate change. However, they continue to run marketing and lobbying campaigns intended to mislead policymakers and the public about climate change and Defendants’ role in causing it.”
…