- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
You know the rich usually get “eaten” first when there is not enough to go around for everyone else.
You can’t eat a yacht but you can certainly strip it down and sell the copper wires for some cash if people are really desperate.
I’ve seen this happen before on job sites where the building sat for awhile. We opened one MSP and a bunch of wires landed on the tech when he opened the door. Scared the shit out of him. He thought he was going to die since he didn’t expect it and didn’t know if power was running to that MSP or not.
the rich get eaten but the first stage is normally the poor dying in the gutter
its also a lot harder to get to a yacht that isnt docked.
it also leaves you with no where else to go if you quit paying the workers.
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.
Considering it powers most of our economy yes it is. But its also very dangerous to continue relying on them.
Doing thing that would be bad, is bad.
We should do this other thing, that is worse.
What a clown.
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…
We have better non earth destroying energy than fossil fuel… That guy is a dinosaur.
A dinosaur who sells dead dinosaurs.
“We have better non earth destroying energy fossil fuel… That guy is a dinosaur.”
So you’re willing to give up plastics and electronics, which use byproducts from oil refining? Let us know when you practice what you preach.
Plastics make up only about 4% of the total oil production.
I’d say oil extraction needs to be reserved for that, long term (hundreds of years). Medium term, reserved for industrial, space, commercial transportation, and rural use only. I cannot believe we’re in the year twenty-fucking-twenty-three and we still have non-commercial ICE vehicles driving around metro areas in developed nations.
Not to mention we have SO much plastic already out there that if every source of oil dried up tomorrow we’d just find a better way to recycle.
Bioplastics are a thing, and improving consistently so oil based plastics are not manditory. My PLA printing box deskside here agrees.
'Thou sayeth thou do not abide by thy Lord’s feudalism, but thy eat food growethed by it.
Alas, for thou art most clearly bested by mine wit!’
So spez is dipping into the oil market now
