this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
225 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2543 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

The Shell chief executive, who took up the post last September, also argued that poorer countries would bear the brunt of a gas shortfall if they were unable to compete for shipments on the global market.

“What would be dangerous and irresponsible is cutting oil and gas production so that the cost of living, as we saw last year, starts to shoot up again,” Sawan told the BBC.

That's not wrong, but it's from a biased perspective. It is true that if we were to reduce supply of a primary energy source, that the wealthy would continue on mostly as normal, and the poor would bear most of the suffering, with a side of "wealth moving from rish people to even richer people."

His position, though, comes from the perspective of "Because I'm a hammer, that must be a nail." Yes, it is important to be aware of the effects of reducing fossil fuel production without replacing that with another energy solution. A much better way to realize reduction in fossil fuel production would be to make renewable and green energy sources even more prominent, and economically competitive. Giving the world other economically viable options will reduce demand for fossil fuels.

Big oil companies like Shell can either pivot to embrace new energy technologies or risk becoming less relevant.

[–] iuseit@iusearchlinux.fyi 16 points 1 year ago

Considering it powers most of our economy yes it is. But its also very dangerous to continue relying on them.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Doing thing that would be bad, is bad.

We should do this other thing, that is worse.

What a clown.

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Its the response of a mafioso - “You want to muscle into our territory? I dunno; very bad things could happen…”

Screw this guy. I bought an ID.3 2 years ago and I’ve not been back to a Shell once. That’s how I vote this guy out of business…

[–] Hairyblue@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We have better non earth destroying energy than fossil fuel.. That guy is a dinosaur.

[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

A dinosaur who sells dead dinosaurs.

[–] Smoogy@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

So spez is dipping into the oil market now

load more comments
view more: next ›