I'm gonna have to stop at 100 companies being responsible for 71% of green house gas emissions.

If the criticism is deceptive practices, don't start with deceptive statistics of your own. It's awful easy to blame Shell for all the greenhouse gas emissions of the gasoline they sell. It's wonderful to not have to take personal responsibility for your act of buying that gas for your own transportation, for the manufacture of your own food, for the transportation of that same food to your supermarket. Better still, the gas and electricity used to heat and cool your home can be blamed on the coal and power companies too.

Videos like this are part of the problem by abdicating our own responsibilities and pawning it off on someone else. Stop making this worse while pretending to care about the problem.

What say you to those who grow their own food, produce their own power with microhydro, solar, and or wind, (or only buy renewable energy, possible in California) and drive electric vehicles or bicycles when they drive?

What about those who still pollute, but offset their carbon usage by buying credits/planting trees?

Can they blame the problem on the companies who supply destructive products and the junk science that tricks gullible ignoramuses into believing they aren't destructive...or do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

I mean, your position seems to be if you assholes wouldn't buy the lead painted products, we wouldn't be selling it to toy companies and producing studies claiming it's safe....so it's your fault your child is brain damaged....or the same argument over opioids, your fault you listened to your doctor and got addicted, then turned to heroin, not your doctor who told you the pills weren't addictive, certainly not the drug company who told your doctor they were safe, right?
Fortunately, courts don't think that way, just ask Johnson and Johnson.

Yes, customers bear some responsibility for what they buy, but not nearly as much as the sellers, especially true when the sellers advertise by lying about the dangers. When companies lie about their products dangers, they make themselves 100% responsible for their damages.

I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

I think that, considering the long term massive if not apocalyptic damage done along with the temporary gains, it's undeniably a big negative for humanity and the rest of the planet. Groups like the Amish get along quite nicely without it.

Edit: Now will you please answer my question?

Because its marketing?
Like every ad ever?
Only say good things from a positive angle and if you have nothing to say, sing it?
If you want to be disgusted, you are invited, dear SJW!

We are supposed to be "disgusted" but instead I had to tank twice yesterday just because of work.

Not at Shell BTW because they are expensive. Maybe they are expensive because they are trying to look green, but my take is that its all just marketing. Marketing is there to be ignored or sneered at by the customer.

If we abruptly drop out of this vicious cycle of internet banking, meat eating and fossil fuel burning, will half of us not die for various reasons? Starting with me and my family, of hunger? Or more probably, just me, of blunt instrument to the head, held by wife?

And this video is also just marketing, for an ideology.

Car is freedom. Bus is a jail.

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

I once wondered if we should promote particularly dirty cars (before 'rolling coal' became a thing), thinking they could shock people into realisation.

I don't believe as much that people are waiting to be shocked into significant change. Instead, I think that the herd will gradually move - more quickly the easier it is to do so.

If Shell's endorsing moving towards green, I support that: if they get a bit better, they take a lot of people in the right direction. If they're jumped on for trying this, the people whose idea it was will be fired: they won't try again for a while.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

I had to stop when he showed a pie chart that said 4-8% but the sliver in the chart represented close to 2%.

I'm a supporter of an accelerated move to low carbon emission energy sources. However, this video used too many manipulative tactics and I couldn't even figure out the thesis. Is it, "company promoting itself is bad?" If you're consuming corporate promotions as if it's hard news, then you're failing a basic test of critical thinking skills.

Again, please explain what, specifically, I claimed that's not supported by the science.

I thought it's "Top ten polluter promoting itself as green (and in the same breath promoting car travel as green) is bad."....no?

@newtboy,

Walking backwards to simplify, my main point is that simply blaming ALL fossil fuel usage on the company providing the fossil fuel is stupid and misleading in the extreme. We don't see millions of people willingly abandoning fossil fuels and living in abject poverty to save the world, instead they are all very willing and eagerly buying them and this video lets all those people off the hook. This video lets everybody keep using fossil fuels, and at the same time pointing the finger at Shell and saying it's all their fault. It's an extremely detrimental piece of disinformation.

"explain what, specifically, I claimed that's not supported by the science."
-Complete collapse of the food web
-Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees
-Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea
-Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2
-Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land
-Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years

Almost as stupid as holding the producers of the toxic product AND the misleading or outright false information about it's hazards blameless. Because they actively misled their customers, I give them the vast lions share of blame, but maybe not 100%. There's plenty to go around.

You don't have to live in poverty to abandon fossil fuels.
Not.
Even.
Close.
I bought solar 10+- years back...it paid for itself in 8. It's lifespan is 20+-. I get 12 years of free electricity for abandoning that portion, with no blackouts, no brownouts, and no rate increases.

True, the video could be better at sharing the blame, but it stayed on topic instead, that topic being major polluters greenwashing their mage. I didn't take it as assigning ALL blame to one source, just not allowing the worst offenders to shirk all responsibility for their products.


Every one of these is the likely outcome of any anthropogenic rise over 2-3C because of feedback loops that drive us to 6-12C rise. Only the wars are likely this century, but I didn't put a timeframe on those outcomes. 140 million + will be displaced by just a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections.
That wipes out mangroves and other fish nurseries, further impacting the struggling ocean food webs. All the while it accelerates as our ability to cope erodes like the shorelines....it doesn't just halt at 3' rise.
The natural food webs on land are also struggling, and are unlikely to survive ocean collapse.

Not just from deforestation, but diatoms are near a point of collapse from ocean acidification. https://diatoms.org/what-are-diatoms. That's over 1/2....and the base of the ocean food web.


Since the IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates) now says at current rates we could hit as much as a 6C rise by 2100, and rates of emissions are rising as fast as carbon sinks are shrinking, they're not just a possibility, they a likelihood in the near future....but granted the hydrogen sulfide clouds are far in a worst case scenario future, far from guaranteed.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

@newtboy said:
“i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me”

Sigh, no. All but the most extreme end of the most pessimistic projections are for under 3ft by 2100. That is the science.

Each of your earlier claims can be demonstrated to be equally contrary to actual scientific expectation. Regrettably, your content to refute the IPCC with a link to a Forbes article...

Its a waste of my time to point out the science if you aren’t willing to. I’m out.

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

Care to retract now that even the new U.N. report (along with all the other studies I linked) reportedly says almost exactly what I suggested....faster and higher sea level rise than previously predicted, likely above 3 ft by 2100, hundreds of millions of refugees, massive loss of sea life, loss of water for billions, droughts, floods, and diseases expected to drastically reduce the amount of food production world wide, etc....or are you going to continue to, head in the sand, ignore the scientific consensus to stand on the 5+ year old report that was lambasted by the scientific community as unbelievably optimistic when it was released?

Had you read the Forbes article (or the other links provided) you would know it was reiterating NOAA data and predictions, not making it's own.
But it's a waste of time to point out the science if you aren't willing to examine it.

I'm still in.

Oh, come on newt. It's nothing a new Sharpie can't fix.