Oil companies are like the mafia 😂 They come and say “wouldn’t it be a shame if something happened to this beautiful forest?” “But not to worry. If you buy our extra expensive fuel, we will make sure your forest doesn’t get cut down. Just remember if you don’t buy the extra expensive fuel, you will have chosen to have the forest cut down. That wouldn’t look very good when your friends see that you support cutting down trees just because you want to save a penny.”
lol told someone who is into carbon credits that it is a scam a few weeks ago and used the same kind of analogy, it is literally holding the forests hostage and asking for ransom.
The "socially conscious" trend from these mega conglomerates is the scariest thing to come out in a while. any company that actually enacts the change that they are claiming to is going to be met with infinite distrust
I mean this totally isn't a recent phenomenon. When lead was out in gas the scientists knew the effects, hell the entire world knew what lead did for a while by the time lead gas was made. But it was efficient and cheap and worked well until lead poisoning became too widespread to ignore
C02 feeds the planet... nothing at all wrong with C02 emissions, atmospheric C02 is the most critical source of plant food on the planet, if C02 levels were much lower then they are today our planet would starve to death, all crops would fail, most plant life would die off... Climate science is dead wrong and none of you are informed enough to even know better... same fakery as Covid science... Truth is you people are so misinformed that your voting rights are a threat to national security, your heads are full of crap
Investors understand all "green" efforts are false, because if these companies were actually going to do anything meaningful, they wouldnt be able to compete with all other companies
The major corporations of the world could legitimately hold us all hostage by refusing to sell major resources until their demands are met, and people think the military would help us in that case? Lol we are truly in the earliest earliest stages of the corporate era of global empires. People better start throwing their lives away into the cause now or it'll never happen.
Or, are they needing funds to fight the legal battle. Granted all of this is controlled opposition. I'm not saying overpopulation can't be a thing but it's simply not in our modern state or even in the next 1000 years. Literally all of the worlds population of humans can live inside the state of Texas in 10x10 buildings. There is no overpopulation going on. Just a psyops to take more money and regulate your life for profit because if you don't follow those regulations guess what? You get fined. And how do you follow those regulations? You guessed it, YOU pay more for tools with special regulators and filters that are actually totally unneeded and virtually useless
Even if all offsets were backed by actually preventing a forest from getting cut down, you'll still add co2 to the atmosphere, ideally you just prevent it from getting double. Realistically they'll just cut a different forest down
And it's a ridiculous premise to begin with, when we keep pumping billions of gallons of carbon rich oil out of the ground that can never be put back. We either find a new way to capture that carbon or we burn the planet and die.
If you prevent a specific forest from getting cut down or burned, it is very likely that the deforestation in the surrounding area is just larger and compensates (in the negative direction) most of the "conservation". Which in turn is great for the CO2 certificates created, so you can just increase the number of certificates created out of thin air or someone's hypothesis, because the deforestation in your comparison area increases even more...
@@golemgoats I'm aware but even if it was, your CO2 emissions wouldn't magically disappear. I'm saying that not only they aren't delivering what they promised, what they promise doesn't actually solve the problem even if fully implemented
I used to work for one of these shady in-between companies. Surprising you didn't mention them, South Pole, given the massive controversies that happened this year. If you ever want to dive even deeper into this, because even this in-depth report you made on this, which I am super happy about to see someone finally picking up on this, let me know. I have (internal) data that will blow your mind. You know people from Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. all sit on the boards of companies like Verra, IETA, and all the rest? The ICVCM, which is the new way this market is going to regulate itself, is headed by the same woman who headed the SEC and introduce deregulation, right before the ENRON and Worldcom collapses happened :p As good as this video was, it covers maybe 5% of what is really going on.
Oil companies: making a pledge to reduce your personal carbon footprints makes a big difference in the fight against climate change and pollution. Me: I pledge not to spill 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
I pledge to not buy that much shit. This won't change anything about my life, since I already do not buy much shit, because I don't have the money for that. I'm doing my part to save the world!
@@Dawg7227Yeah well I just do what I can to not destroy the world more then it is already, but giving extra money to an oli company or any other multinational for that matter because they will "safe" the world is not on my list. Throwing battery's in the ocean isn't on that list either tho
I've worked for Shell's advertising agency a long time back (one of dozens of agencies on their account) and was made aware that their spend on marketing was primarily made up of greenwashing and what we call "Hocus-Focus" in the bullshit biz. I wrote a mini-documentary "funded by Shell" (aka "propaganda underwritten and tasked by Shell...) about how awesome their deepwater drilling history was and all the records for depth and size etc. I did suggest we have a metric on how many dead seabirds her platform world record would be fun (this obviously not to the client...not many laughs in the room even at the agency). They are evil incarnate.
What grinds my gears is that Shell, BP, etc knew decades ago that burning oil was not good, and instead of working on alternatives they just suppressed and passed the blame. Like, they wouldn't have to worry about losing their industry if they had positioned themselves as more than just an oil company. They're certainly big/profitable enough. Maybe that'd be an antitrust thing if they cornered the energy market that heavily, but idk maybe things would have played out differently.
Actually, carbon credits might not be such a bad idea IF big companies promoted system change BUT the focus on individuals, calculation methods of indigenous discrimination, calculation, generalization, extrapolation and oversight
The CO2 for gasoline was dug out of the ground. The only way to "offset" that would be to put CO2 back into the ground, not let it accumulate somewhere on the surface.
Unfortunately those credits would be at least 23 cents a litre (and maybe five times that if the recent new technology isn't quite what it promises) just for the tailpipe emissions. Too expensive for most people, so they choose the cheaper lie.
CO2 is a net positive and the hate for it is a socially engineered scam. Actual climate change factors get ignored in favor of reinforcing investment returns.
You do not seem to understand how any of this works. CO2 is not dug out of the ground and used for gas, CO2 is released out of the exhaust of a motor when gasoline is combusted by the motor. The problem is there is too much CO2 in the air because too much gasoline is being combusted. Offsetting this would be planting a ton of trees, because trees eat up CO2 and pump out Oxygen. There are other ways to offset CO2, but the best way to turn the climate emergency around is to reduce your CO2 output.
Yeah but it's the actual practical and effective way to do it. You ever heard of air Filterration or anything that claims carbon fixation? It's not practical since the energy consumption which will cause positive net carbon production.
Exactly. We emit 36.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. If the US alone buys all the credits and save the entire world (at $15 a metric ton), it will only represent 2.3% of its annual spendings
The actual price should be between 23 cents and $1.15 (USD) per litre, depending on how honest the latest DACC technology is being. (That's .20 to 1.00 euros per litre or $0.87 to $4.35 USD / gallon. USD/litre is an odd unit to use, given Americans...)
I remember an interview with the Shell CEO. Asked how they could justify selling stuff that's so bad for earth, she responded with "the demand is simply there". I loved that. So fucking perfect she chose the exact same answer as a drug dealer would.
sorry what kind of idea is that? we dont cut down a forrest so give us money? Sorry but if someone cuts down forrest it should cost money because its adding carbon. you dont offset carbon you add carbon and pay for a white vest. there is no neutral in that.
Fun fact All the companies who would eventually be "champions of green energy" are the current shady energy and oil juggernauts who are already on top like shell. That is if they go green. As companies looks at this from an economical approach, in the long term, they will need to rely on renewables before they run out of fossil fuels. How long until they fully move over is anyone's guess. But the transition requires more CO2 emissions from expanded lithium and cobalt mining (which both will hopefully become less destructive once cobalt recycling gets more popular), likely deforestation, and other negative environmental problems.
and that is why if every country in the world started to create laws to reduce oil extraction maybe 40 years ago we would probably be in a good place right now as all those companies would have been forced to transition their investment to green energy. if the only purpose of corporations is to make money, just create laws that guarantee being sustainable is more profitable.
It's not a guess. Fossil fuel companies are expecting 3.2°C warning at minimum by 2100(with 5°C by 2100 being what to expect if fossil fuel conglomerates aren't forcefully stopped, which does not include any runaway impacts that could result from that's warming). And those companies will drive us all to heat death with the same level of concern you give to what you will have for lunch today.
“Running out of fossil fuels” won’t actually end up being an issue. There is so much oil and natural gas in the world that if we reached the point where we were close to “running out” the earth would be far to hot to be inhabitable by humans anyway
Instead of protecting forests who are being deforested right now, they try to protect forests that aren't under any threat at the moment. It's like bringing someone to the hospital that might get sick, instead of the guy who's bleeding.
But it's cheaper to "protect" forests that weren't under threat and just sit back as the country enforces the already present protections, than to go out and actually stand in the way of real deforestation and protect at risk areas. The second costs _money,_ don't ya know. /s
They opened up a Shell where the old gas bar used to be - a local establishment in a sea of corporate megabrands that we'd frequented for around 25 years, since it opened. I knew many people who worked there. But, the lease was up, they were out, and Shell went in... only to start playing ads on all of their new, shiny pumps. The place is always deserted now, which for a city is a hard ask - people heard about all the relentless ads being blared the second you lift the nozzle and decided to skip pulling into the station.
I don't think any company can really claim that they are green... In most cases, their own communications teams probably have no clue about the background of these claims... They should do their due diligence, though
This video is straight quality dude. No imitations here. I love it, keep up the great work and look forward to being with you on your journey to 10 million!
We appear to have collective amnesia, Shell's whole history is knowingly damning humanity while lying about it to make sure that no one stop their operations. It's ridiculous to pretend that suddenly they care about the planet they've insisted to destroy for years and years.
But in the end, corporations are people inside them. Until they can be sued and imprisoned personally nothing will change. And of course why would those laws be enacted when those running them are in bed with the politicians?
They are a successful German channel, so all the research was done before and now they just have ton translate the videos, but still nice to have frequent high quality videos
Have seen this sort of video and research before, its great to see more about it adding the its authenticity! I hope the people will start seeing through the nonsense they're sold and make real changes that have impacts, but I fear the powerful companies will simply not allow it.
But they aren't telling the truth about the go green campaign with solar and wind farms, all the governments pushing it are only pointing out the pro's but not disclosing the cons. It's not carbon neutral to make and export or to run, a lot of it is just lies as they claim their country is lowering their Co2 output but in reality are just transferring where the emissions are created. They transport the mined materials to a country like China that are pumping out emissions because they aren't part of the farce, they claim to be a developing country to get away with it or just blatantly say no, then the goods are made their then have to be transported all around the world. Wind farms require diesel for the motors that get them turning to begin with and oil to lubricate whilst running, that's why when they carch on fire they burn for ages. Solar panels create silica dust which is as healthy as asbestos, they are made from coal and quartz, then require more coal to burn to produce, the only renewable part really is renewing them when their lifespan is over, they claim to be 95% recyclable but only 5% are recycled so they still go to landfill, windfarm blades are being crushed up to use in furnaces to create cement, so billowing out smoke. And at the end of the day these renewables still require the mining and emissions output. It's just basically replacing one bad with another bad but as long as it sounds good people believe it is good
As someone getting a degree in forestry, my natural resource management had a big focus on carbon credits. The term for what shell and others are doing circumventing responsibility through loopholes is called, leakage. The majority of replanting nonprofits are not legit and most are harming the environment by killing biodiversity. Restoring the environment is very, very, expensive. It is cheaper to do large scale with the higher initial upfront cost than small scale over time. I've noticed one major trend, investors are not held accountable for any investments that cause environmental harm. There are people like me, who want to fix shit, but can't because everyone is so insanely greedy, they only care about their profits and how to pull one over on another for a buck. There needs to be major change, but even then it may already be too late. Yet, still someone needs to be held accountable. Additionally, many forest management methods are demonized and attacked by people who know *nothing* about the environment. Slash and burn, a common practice in South America, one being stamped out by governments. Slash and burn is typical with agroforestry and home gardens (not raised flower beds), and this practice actually increases biodiversity. Fires are a natural part of the system, while many wildfires are man caused, it can be argued our ancestors used fire in the landscape for hunting, etc. so it co-evolved with us. But extreme fire suppression for decades has caused immense harm. Last point: Everything that feels broken seems to be anything regarding paper-pushing jobs and bureaucracy. Which makes sense why the people pushing papers and writing the bureaucracy are also the ones making the most money.
If school actually did teach this, I think it would be enjoyable, but it seems unlikely. Corporations already have the education system by the neck. Look at Adobe.
I despise Shell as much as the next guy but this issue doesn't seem specific to Shell. The whole carbon offseting genre within the ESG industry is shady as hell.
A very large portion of teslas value is derived from them earning and selling carbon credits to perpetuate this problem too, such a disgrace all of this is.
I came across this channel because I was watching a lot of neo and IMPERIAL's content, I have been a consistent viewer ever since, when you upload it's automatically a good day
When it said, the company's CEO is a former investement banker, I knew it was a scam. Anything that is done by an investement banker is a scam, as they have no skillsets other than being a scamster.
There is a source of energy that could be used to replace fossil fuels quickly. Sadly, successful lobbying made it hard and expensive to build this type of power plants. Some countries even decided to stop using this particular source of energy - I’m looking at you, Germany! Also,this source of energy happens to be the only one that can successfully replace fossil fuels without the need of any imaginary fictional technology, and has the lowest carbon emissions of absolutely all sources of energy.
addicted to your content. found you channel not long ago and been consuming your videos, they are so well made and sometimes the hidden jokes are the best
I'm glad you do these deep diving researches that reveal the things going on behind the curtains of cooperation websites! Keep up the good work. I love it!
I think it's also interesting to think about how rich these companies are. If you just look at how expensive an small ad in a local newspaper is, you realize why the big ad space is only used by huge companies. Shell and friends (who are all very smart with money) believe it to be more profitable to spend (read: "throw away") millions and millions on international ad campaigns with shameless propaganda, instead of actually working on the problem. Just imagine for a second what solutions these super companies could come up if they actually tried. Why should I, middle class person, struggling to just get by, pay extra money to Shell? It's insane.
What's funny Pilipinas Shell(Shell Philippines) doesn't bother doing these greenwashing campaign here. They know the population is still highly reliant on fossil fuels, but there is slow shift towards simple mobility(walking, biking, mass transport), and demand for end of fossil fuel reliance.
I've said for a while that carbon credits should only be available for directly sequestered carbon. If they directly deposited organic waste from paper, etc, into the ground rather than have it be released, then that's a credit. Every tonne of carbon (biochar) deposited into the forests should be the credit; not just a threat that they'd cut it down otherwise
The fact that Shell wants us to believe that the trees they "save" will just _Ctrl+A Delete_ all their CO2 from the atmosphere is so sad that it's almost funny again
Only 2mins in an love this already! Not sure how this doesn't have more views or subs. No AI voices, not just stock images, and images that actually match what's on the screen! Keep it up mate, good quality!
Carbon credits are BS but don’t act we just use crude oil for gasoline. That’s beyond over simplification, petroleum is used for/in almost everything you touch on a daily basis. There would be no shell is there was no demand for these products.
The moral conundrum is, that despite the concept of a carbon neutral policy, any body who does a campain about "saving a nature area" is just them possibly not letting extra emissions get freed, and instead justify with that their own emissions, as if the emissions are not still happening. These bodys of companies or even countries obviously have done a great job of banishing this fact into the shodow realm.
Two thoughts. The first is that trees actively absorb huge amounts of CO2, not just store it. Every new leaf or branch sprout is built on the carbon atom it absorbed from the atmosphere as CO2. The second is that CO2 is not the problem. A deep deep dive into what's happening will show that several planets in our solar system are undergoing climate change in the last ten years also. Every planet has warmed up 0.5 - 1.0 degrees C in the last 6-7 years, starting with Pluto/Neptune (pick whichever) and slowly moving towards the sun. The winds on every planet have changed, some stopping altogether or completely reversing (Neptune). Pluto had a very thin atmosphere but it has collapsed recently. Jupiter's winds have changed and slowly are eating away at the "Great Red Spot". And so on. The Earth is just in the midst of these solar system changes, but to acknowledge this doesn't make any money. In addition, wild fires and volcanos in recent years are pumping out so much CO2 that what we do is pale in comparison. What humans do is but a drop in a bucket compared to what's been happening. But, acknowledging any of this doesn't make any money either.
Great video. Thank you! Carbon credits to me always smelled of scam. Would be interesting to know, if there is ANY kind of backlash for the Dutch Royal Family.
Shell left for England so it no longer is royal Shell. Which saved the royals from having to make the decision to retract the title themselves. Shell also damaged multiple villages in the Netherlands without repercussions. Accountability is not the strong suit of the Netherlands
The idea of associating credits to a theoretical CO2 emission that doesn't even exist is completely absurd! It's like me saying "I'm giving you credits that offset the water you use by making sure no theoretical water is being wasted in the deserts".
I am disappointed in kari i feel since she is a ex mythbuster so surely unlike a lot celebrities who promote things the don't understand. In this case she probably knows is all bs she is not a stupid person
The implicit issue with carbon credits if you take the claims at face value, is that they simply can't be remotely functional as a proportional response to emissions, because they arent reversing deforestation or increasing the rate of carbon capture at all, but reducing the loss. And the current trajectory of the climate is that it will deteriorate, not recover, even if all deforestation stopped and emissions stayed the same. So assuming carbon credits are universally adopted, honestly, and accurately reflect the carbon footprint of the production which they are tied to, *even* if that involves the expansion of protected areas to every single stretch of net-negstive-carbon land on the planet - the climate disaster continues, just doesnt accelerate. To say nothing of these production systems eventually being in conflict with the very protections they pay for and the lack of any apparent intention to scale carbon credits to protect most or all of the natural carbon sinks on the planet, just paying more to protect the same three or four relative slivers of land per company. Similarly as these companies inevitably switch to rebewables, for whatever reason, these protectiosn tied to the market system dry up and create opportunities for exploitation - i.e. the very adoption if renewables removes a market motication to be sustainable for other production systems like palm oil palntation etc.
Talks about switching to renewables. Doesn't even show the actual solution to the energy pollution crisis: nuclear energy. Wind and solar are a joke compared to the output of nuclear energy. Due to how much nuclear produces, the amount of pollution generated per kilowatt hour is less. That's the most important metric when talking about how clean it is because you will have to build production to meet demand. And nuclear energy is one of the most misunderstood and fear mongered subjects.
istg imagine being one of the scientists during the 70s and discovering the concept of fission, seeing how much raw energy potential there is, handing over your research to the government, and then half a century later we’re still in the fucking industrial revolution burning coal and oil for energy
The quickest way to transition away from fossil fuels is Nuclear. Nuclear can be 100% safe when handled properly or using specific designs such as magmatic salt core. In that type of Nuclear plant meltdown never reaches ground water and encases the hazardous material in a block of crystalized salt, leaving it inert. Electric cars can then receive all of their energy from a completely green source while we slowly set up renewable sources which take a lot more planning and cost more to implement watt per watt. As for Electric cars being extremely hazardous and using rare materials we receive from bad countries, switch to salt based or mechanical, we can deal with any efficiency loss with the cheap energy provided by Nuclear power while we look for new alternatives, such as building cities around a rail and personal carts system all connected to the grid, they are more efficient then cars anyway.
There is no complete transition away from fossil fuels though. They don’t make batteries that are strong enough and yet light enough to fit into ships and planes. The power to weight ratio isn’t suitable for these methods of travel. Which may not seem like a big deal but there are countries who rely on imports of various food products to avoid starvation. Or businesses that rely on the petroleum chemicals, produced from refined crude oil, to make the goods we use every day (asphalt as an example). We still rely on various metals and minerals that can only be shipped using large cargo ships. The quickest mode of global travel is still through the air and it isn’t going to change anytime soon. Also switching to Nuclear and electric cars isn’t really quick. Unless by quick you mean decades.
@@INoticeTooMuch1 -First limit plane use to intercontinental trains for every thing else. Even excluding gas use, the C word times proved there are more negative affects. -You could also reintroduce the zeppelin. to replace cruise ships, we can make them 100% safe now as an episode of Archer joked about, and they can be run off 100% solar. -For boats. If they are smaller limit them to wind and solar or battery packs for shorter distances, there are also some amazing forgotten designs like the boat which uses the flow of a river to go upstream, if they are larger such as cargo freighters, then either give them the good old nuclear sub treatment or better yet, there is that mixture that Thunderf00t made a video about which uses Natural Gas mixed with sea water to create an out put of nearly gasoline's power and a chlorine based anti greenhouse aerosol. -Asphalt is recyclable... also big brain moment, cars suck. If you make home office mandatory where it can be done without issues such as office jobs, you will lower the amount of traffic we have on the roads. This is an immediate fix. If this "takes away jobs" mandate a doubling of the pay of all worker pay under a certain yearly so that everyone works half the time or less. Tribe members and even serfs of the medieval era worked only 16-17 hours on average per week more in the summer basically zero in winter. Our tech is way better we should be working less then them. That means less cars to build, less asphalt needed and even a quicker overturn to electric cars since the amount needed to be produced is lower. Finally, cities should be changed to an elevated or underground rail only system with small pods, we already dig deep holes to make streets, might be a better design. Intercity could see the small pods hook together? there are multiple possible design choices there. But this would mean you could control everything automatically and public transport would come at the press of a button. As for transport trucks bringing goods to stores. We have the technology now to automate that, put a rail under commercial districts and bring goods to the basements of stores. Hand a robotic system unload the packages based on QR code scanning and automated delivery programs.
Overall good video. However the “BPs core business must end asap” is pretty irresponsible. People will think that is tomorrow when that simply isn’t possible. Renewables have been a huge failure until we can store that energy efficiently, and we would have to dig up so many metals out of the ground for the next 30 years it would do more harm through that time.
19:29 The $220 per ton of CO2 is not the price required to offset a ton of CO2 but rather the societal cost of releasing that amount of CO2. So that is inaccurate. Please clarify if I'm wrong with specific sources
I'm usually watching the german "version",but this version is as funny and informative as the other. I think I am going to watch more of the english videos.Just a little help for you:)And a new sub. Keep up the amazing work up!❤
Let's say I have a farm that's half fields and half forested. I can start a carbon offset project clammy to protect that for us from being cut down and turned into a field in exchange for money. What these projects will often do then is remarket the same forest and pledge not to turn into pasture land, generating twice the funds from the same land.
I saw a poster a few months back in a gas station here in sask Canada. A poster from shell talking about "saving the rainforest". Thought it was funny, glad your shining a light on this.
It’s like saying you are protecting the Sahara from being settled when literally no one was ever considering living there. Or volunteering tutoring time for Harvard students and taking credit for their success, lol
So is it the oil companies that are bad? If people want and need oil, someone has to extract it. Unless they don't do it in a much dirtier way than other companies do, then it's okay, isn't it?
Irrelevant. This is still a big lie from them. Actual offsets would cost 8 to 40 times this amount. Even if you absolutely love big oil, you should be able to admit that selling a cheap lie is wrong.
@tristanridley1601 Lying is obviously wrong, but in this case it doesn't matter. Nobody buys oil because of greenwashing. Oil is just needed. Otherwise just boycott this company if they are lying to you.
I'm usually watching the german version,but this version is as funny and informative as the other. I think I am going to watch more of the english videos.(Of course I keep watching the german version too).Just a little help for you:)And a new sub. Keep up the amazing work up!❤
For anyone consider an ELECTRIC Vehicle please do your research on the amount of resources, how these resources are mined, where and by who, it takes to make a battery. Please also remember that at the end of the day your electric vehicle is actually a fossil fuel vehicle because at least in the united states more then 70% of electricity is produced using oil and coal. Also please consider that lithium isnt very stable in colder climates. Also remember that electric vehicles have batteries that need replacement significantly sooner then a gasoline engine will. Please also consider that 80% of a gasoline car can be recycled and that while you can recycle lithium batteries its extremely costly, energy intensive, and not very practical. Thanks. A gasoline car owner.
If you worked in oil and gas you would know that shell is probably considered one of the highest standard companies ( at least in Canada ) you wouldn't believe what some are getting away with
I have known petroleum engineers, rig hands and geologist who worked overseas for part of their career returning back to North America later in life. Many of them shed tears talking about the environmental and social tragedies they have seen in the oilfields of the world. Rivers of oil, black daytime skies, millions of animals lying dead in fields/lakes, innocents killed, workers dying young from work related disease. If there is necessary oil, let it be from North America, NW Europe or Australia. But that will not practically happen any time soon so we do need to keep up pressure on the entire industry to improve...as well as just stop burning their products.
Side note: I get really angry when obstructionists talk about the humanitarian consequences of materials for batteries and solar panels etc. FFS what a stupid argument. Completely ignores all the tragedy the fossil fuel industry has brought to the world as if it is somehow any better.
You can't just offset carbon emissions by paying for some forests to been saved, the only kind of "carbon credit" that I'd consider legitimate is an actual tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere with carbon capture, converted into a storable form (e.g. calcium carbonates) and buried deep underground, where it shouldn't have been dug and drilled from in the first place
Except the energy needed to manually remove 1 tonne of carbon from the atmosphere puts about 0.8 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon Capture can be summed up as "Let's use a huge amount of energy reducing some of the emissions from our energy production". Basic math only a petroleum executive would love because it means we burn even more of their fuels. The only solutions not necessarily in this order, more of done all at the same time: 1. Stop harming natural carbon sinks 2. Rebuild some of the natural carbon sinks we destroyed in the past 3. Stop burning fuels in all ways possible 4. Reduce consumption of pretty much everything else as well. 5. Reduce the income gap among all citizens of the nation and the world so this reduction does not cause global social tragedy 6. End all war and global conflict, racism, bigotry and religious persecution so we can fraction all the world's military and start cooperating towards this goal 7. Wait for nature to balance this out and hope we have not caused an extinction or bloom of some microorganism that kills us all. If we cannot do ALL of these things NOW there is no avoiding mass human tragedy and the looming extinction of the species. Good luck everyone!
@Voyatrix maybe. Though there may also be several other things we could do with the same amount of energy, effort, materials and money that would prevent 2.0 tonnes from going into the atmosphere. Now is not the time to be investing in the least effective solutions.
I back packed through south east Asia in the 90s when that massive hooo-haa happened in Indonesia with the burning, it was intense for sure with all the smoke... I caught a boat from Singapore to Sumatra then eventually a bus journey to the southern side, I couldn't comprehend how much jungle had been destroyed and in it's place were trees that spanned hours of bus travel.... unreal...and that was 3 decades ago....I just can't imagine the destruction that has passed from then ‼️
The biggest problem we have on this world is that the dream to possess as much money and luxuries as possible, while doing little or nothing to contribute to society, is nothing special. It's held by the average person. Those same people will watch this video and shake their fist at the shell company logo. Then they will book a journey on a cruise ship for their next holiday. This is why capitalism is such a good fit for humanity. And it's why it's extremely difficult to end our destructive behaviour as a species. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" - that's gonna be the epitaph on humanities gravestone.
CO2 is not hurting the planet. Shell are scumbags because they are lying about their efforts. Agreed. But CO2 reduction efforts are not necessary. It's a scam propagated by government, and people have been manipulated to believe it.
you must be kidding ,your advising to make "MoRe SuStAiNaBlE EnRgie " your sustainable energy is literally more polluting then shell and all the oil company's combined , do you know what digging up the lithium for battery's and the silver and the minerals to make a solar panel do to the earth ? do you know the sheer number of solar panels we need to make to offset the human consumption ? do you know that solar panels cannot be recycled ,their life is 25 years and they lose 20% of their capacity so after 25 years ,if it survives that long you have billions of tons of unrecyclable material. the solution is more nuclear power plants ,they produce about 20 tons of waste every year and they provide millions of houses with electricity with virtually no co2 emissions , the other one for cars is sodium based battery's ,they are made with literal salt and more recyclable then lithium cells . but i guess you dont care becoz you dont live in africa .... i do .
There is also one more side .. just as FYI.. : Shell has actually invested and running few solar Farms in Australia. Now time has come for investments maturity .. so they are simply just selling the projects at a high return.. in the process I’m sure they have been claiming crazy amount of Tax offsets.
Get these damn companies to deal with their own wastes. We need to get companies that uses plastics to handle recycling plastics directly and these fossil fuel companies to handle direct-carbon capture.
Hi 👋 Visit brilliant.org/fern for 20% off of a premium subscription. Start learning new skills today! (ad)
Please add the captions🙏🏿
I only clicked to downvote, so tired of "biG OiL bAD" mantra, aint ya'll funded by some huge conglomerate?
“Carbon Credits” are such a joke…who are you Kidding????
@@Av-vd3wkwell they are real, just google it
Soviet microdistrict vs USA suburb
Oil companies are like the mafia 😂 They come and say “wouldn’t it be a shame if something happened to this beautiful forest?” “But not to worry. If you buy our extra expensive fuel, we will make sure your forest doesn’t get cut down. Just remember if you don’t buy the extra expensive fuel, you will have chosen to have the forest cut down. That wouldn’t look very good when your friends see that you support cutting down trees just because you want to save a penny.”
Exactly the thoughts I had ha. What a mess.
Once again kicking back the responsibility to the consumer and not themselves. Just like the littering campaign with the crying “Indian”.
@@voxburythat dude was Italian I think. I just saw a video on him.
All multi national companies are like the mafia
lol told someone who is into carbon credits that it is a scam a few weeks ago and used the same kind of analogy, it is literally holding the forests hostage and asking for ransom.
The "socially conscious" trend from these mega conglomerates is the scariest thing to come out in a while. any company that actually enacts the change that they are claiming to is going to be met with infinite distrust
Been happening for a long time
I mean this totally isn't a recent phenomenon. When lead was out in gas the scientists knew the effects, hell the entire world knew what lead did for a while by the time lead gas was made. But it was efficient and cheap and worked well until lead poisoning became too widespread to ignore
C02 feeds the planet... nothing at all wrong with C02 emissions, atmospheric C02 is the most critical source of plant food on the planet, if C02 levels were much lower then they are today our planet would starve to death, all crops would fail, most plant life would die off... Climate science is dead wrong and none of you are informed enough to even know better... same fakery as Covid science... Truth is you people are so misinformed that your voting rights are a threat to national security, your heads are full of crap
Back in the good old days, it was socially conscious to recommend smoking cigarettes and drinking brandy to anyone and everyone
Investors understand all "green" efforts are false, because if these companies were actually going to do anything meaningful, they wouldnt be able to compete with all other companies
it's almost like they're threatening to destroy these forests if you don't pay them to not do so
The major corporations of the world could legitimately hold us all hostage by refusing to sell major resources until their demands are met, and people think the military would help us in that case? Lol we are truly in the earliest earliest stages of the corporate era of global empires. People better start throwing their lives away into the cause now or it'll never happen.
Or, are they needing funds to fight the legal battle.
Granted all of this is controlled opposition. I'm not saying overpopulation can't be a thing but it's simply not in our modern state or even in the next 1000 years.
Literally all of the worlds population of humans can live inside the state of Texas in 10x10 buildings.
There is no overpopulation going on. Just a psyops to take more money and regulate your life for profit because if you don't follow those regulations guess what? You get fined. And how do you follow those regulations? You guessed it, YOU pay more for tools with special regulators and filters that are actually totally unneeded and virtually useless
Holding forests hostage is so cool, thanks Shell, great work!
@@olliehizzle People say Nestle is the most evil company but they just dont know how fked up BP and Shell are
Almost? It is the very definition of extortion.
Woah, “for over 60 years” and shows article that says 1970. Unsubscribed
Nice joke.
@@totally_snufkinwho’s gonna tell him
@@totally_snufkinyou know thats theirs other channel it's a joke
ha g
@@seanpower5328 yeah ik their other channel cuz im german :)
Even if all offsets were backed by actually preventing a forest from getting cut down, you'll still add co2 to the atmosphere, ideally you just prevent it from getting double. Realistically they'll just cut a different forest down
And it's a ridiculous premise to begin with, when we keep pumping billions of gallons of carbon rich oil out of the ground that can never be put back. We either find a new way to capture that carbon or we burn the planet and die.
furro furro
If you prevent a specific forest from getting cut down or burned, it is very likely that the deforestation in the surrounding area is just larger and compensates (in the negative direction) most of the "conservation".
Which in turn is great for the CO2 certificates created, so you can just increase the number of certificates created out of thin air or someone's hypothesis, because the deforestation in your comparison area increases even more...
Most of the protected forests for carbon credits were never in risk of being cut down in the first place
@@golemgoats I'm aware but even if it was, your CO2 emissions wouldn't magically disappear. I'm saying that not only they aren't delivering what they promised, what they promise doesn't actually solve the problem even if fully implemented
I used to work for one of these shady in-between companies. Surprising you didn't mention them, South Pole, given the massive controversies that happened this year. If you ever want to dive even deeper into this, because even this in-depth report you made on this, which I am super happy about to see someone finally picking up on this, let me know. I have (internal) data that will blow your mind. You know people from Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. all sit on the boards of companies like Verra, IETA, and all the rest? The ICVCM, which is the new way this market is going to regulate itself, is headed by the same woman who headed the SEC and introduce deregulation, right before the ENRON and Worldcom collapses happened :p As good as this video was, it covers maybe 5% of what is really going on.
This video is a translated reupload from their German channel where it was already published almost a year ago.
Please email us with more info :)
@@fern-tv No problem, though there does not seem to be an email address on your channel I can find :)
And now compare their values with Saudi Aramco.
@@TheApeMachine Channel page, click on "and 1 more link" link and you'd get About pop-up.
Oil companies: making a pledge to reduce your personal carbon footprints makes a big difference in the fight against climate change and pollution.
Me: I pledge not to spill 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Not me, I spent a hard day at work today throwing car batteries in the ocean. 😂
Did you know BP invented the "carbon footprint" idea? They are sleezy af these companies
@@Dawg7227keep up the good work, if we all do our part, the world can be that much worse 😊
I pledge to not buy that much shit. This won't change anything about my life, since I already do not buy much shit, because I don't have the money for that. I'm doing my part to save the world!
@@Dawg7227Yeah well I just do what I can to not destroy the world more then it is already, but giving extra money to an oli company or any other multinational for that matter because they will "safe" the world is not on my list.
Throwing battery's in the ocean isn't on that list either tho
I've worked for Shell's advertising agency a long time back (one of dozens of agencies on their account) and was made aware that their spend on marketing was primarily made up of greenwashing and what we call "Hocus-Focus" in the bullshit biz. I wrote a mini-documentary "funded by Shell" (aka "propaganda underwritten and tasked by Shell...) about how awesome their deepwater drilling history was and all the records for depth and size etc. I did suggest we have a metric on how many dead seabirds her platform world record would be fun (this obviously not to the client...not many laughs in the room even at the agency). They are evil incarnate.
What grinds my gears is that Shell, BP, etc knew decades ago that burning oil was not good, and instead of working on alternatives they just suppressed and passed the blame. Like, they wouldn't have to worry about losing their industry if they had positioned themselves as more than just an oil company. They're certainly big/profitable enough. Maybe that'd be an antitrust thing if they cornered the energy market that heavily, but idk maybe things would have played out differently.
I have heared before that carbon credits are a bad idea, but this video fundamentally made me understand why this is the case. Good job!
Actually, carbon credits might not be such a bad idea IF big companies promoted system change BUT the focus on individuals, calculation methods of indigenous discrimination, calculation, generalization, extrapolation and oversight
@@highperformancelifestyle2602 No. Pushing "DiScRiMiNaTiOn" BS is not a good idea for anything in society. Just stop.
The CO2 for gasoline was dug out of the ground. The only way to "offset" that would be to put CO2 back into the ground, not let it accumulate somewhere on the surface.
Unfortunately those credits would be at least 23 cents a litre (and maybe five times that if the recent new technology isn't quite what it promises) just for the tailpipe emissions.
Too expensive for most people, so they choose the cheaper lie.
CO2 is a net positive and the hate for it is a socially engineered scam. Actual climate change factors get ignored in favor of reinforcing investment returns.
You do not seem to understand how any of this works. CO2 is not dug out of the ground and used for gas, CO2 is released out of the exhaust of a motor when gasoline is combusted by the motor. The problem is there is too much CO2 in the air because too much gasoline is being combusted. Offsetting this would be planting a ton of trees, because trees eat up CO2 and pump out Oxygen. There are other ways to offset CO2, but the best way to turn the climate emergency around is to reduce your CO2 output.
@@tristanridley1601It's not a good marketing strategy to acknowledge the only way to use your product sustainably costs more than not using it at all
Yeah but it's the actual practical and effective way to do it. You ever heard of air Filterration or anything that claims carbon fixation? It's not practical since the energy consumption which will cause positive net carbon production.
If 3 cent per liter could buy a carbon-neutral fuel, we wouldn't have a problem.,
Exactly. We emit 36.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. If the US alone buys all the credits and save the entire world (at $15 a metric ton), it will only represent 2.3% of its annual spendings
The US emits 22% of the CO2 out there, which might not sound a lot until you realise that the US only contains 5% of the world population.
The actual price should be between 23 cents and $1.15 (USD) per litre, depending on how honest the latest DACC technology is being.
(That's .20 to 1.00 euros per litre or $0.87 to $4.35 USD / gallon. USD/litre is an odd unit to use, given Americans...)
@@tristanridley1601 yeah around that. Anything other than DAC is just greenwashing. But even then wtf are we gonna do with the CO2
I remember an interview with the Shell CEO. Asked how they could justify selling stuff that's so bad for earth, she responded with "the demand is simply there". I loved that. So fucking perfect she chose the exact same answer as a drug dealer would.
With a side order of “it’s legal”
sorry what kind of idea is that? we dont cut down a forrest so give us money? Sorry but if someone cuts down forrest it should cost money because its adding carbon. you dont offset carbon you add carbon and pay for a white vest. there is no neutral in that.
Thank Blackrock
I sell carbon credits and can confirm it's a giant scam.
what money? do you know how how money works
Because they own the forest, so they would have the right to cut it down without paying.
Jews always find a way to take money from you
They didn't just do greenwashing they systematically fought against science. As you point out
Fun fact
All the companies who would eventually be "champions of green energy" are the current shady energy and oil juggernauts who are already on top like shell. That is if they go green.
As companies looks at this from an economical approach, in the long term, they will need to rely on renewables before they run out of fossil fuels. How long until they fully move over is anyone's guess. But the transition requires more CO2 emissions from expanded lithium and cobalt mining (which both will hopefully become less destructive once cobalt recycling gets more popular), likely deforestation, and other negative environmental problems.
Fun fact: The reaction of the world to these kinds of news was always: “Oh no! Anyway…“ 😞
I agree I believe it's similar with e cig companies
and that is why if every country in the world started to create laws to reduce oil extraction maybe 40 years ago we would probably be in a good place right now as all those companies would have been forced to transition their investment to green energy. if the only purpose of corporations is to make money, just create laws that guarantee being sustainable is more profitable.
It's not a guess. Fossil fuel companies are expecting 3.2°C warning at minimum by 2100(with 5°C by 2100 being what to expect if fossil fuel conglomerates aren't forcefully stopped, which does not include any runaway impacts that could result from that's warming).
And those companies will drive us all to heat death with the same level of concern you give to what you will have for lunch today.
“Running out of fossil fuels” won’t actually end up being an issue. There is so much oil and natural gas in the world that if we reached the point where we were close to “running out” the earth would be far to hot to be inhabitable by humans anyway
Thank you for talking about stuff like this in such an entertaining and easily accessible way!
shut up
Instead of protecting forests who are being deforested right now, they try to protect forests that aren't under any threat at the moment.
It's like bringing someone to the hospital that might get sick, instead of the guy who's bleeding.
But it's cheaper to "protect" forests that weren't under threat and just sit back as the country enforces the already present protections, than to go out and actually stand in the way of real deforestation and protect at risk areas. The second costs _money,_ don't ya know. /s
They opened up a Shell where the old gas bar used to be - a local establishment in a sea of corporate megabrands that we'd frequented for around 25 years, since it opened. I knew many people who worked there. But, the lease was up, they were out, and Shell went in... only to start playing ads on all of their new, shiny pumps. The place is always deserted now, which for a city is a hard ask - people heard about all the relentless ads being blared the second you lift the nozzle and decided to skip pulling into the station.
I've been looking for a RUclips channel with this kind of content, this is brilliant.
The graphical work on this was absolutely sublime. A joy to watch and it made the information much easier to digest.
Fern is always making top quality videos 👌🏼
A shame to hear about Aldi being complicit in this but they are a corporation so I can’t be shocked
What do you expect from ALDI??
I don't think any company can really claim that they are green... In most cases, their own communications teams probably have no clue about the background of these claims... They should do their due diligence, though
I just had an Aldi Ad in the middle of the video lol
nothing will be more devastating than seeing Kari Byron making propaganda for oil companies.
This video is straight quality dude. No imitations here. I love it, keep up the great work and look forward to being with you on your journey to 10 million!
We appear to have collective amnesia, Shell's whole history is knowingly damning humanity while lying about it to make sure that no one stop their operations. It's ridiculous to pretend that suddenly they care about the planet they've insisted to destroy for years and years.
But in the end, corporations are people inside them. Until they can be sued and imprisoned personally nothing will change. And of course why would those laws be enacted when those running them are in bed with the politicians?
Carbon NFTs to try to save face while doing nothing.
This channel releasing banger after bangers
They are a successful German channel, so all the research was done before and now they just have ton translate the videos, but still nice to have frequent high quality videos
This would make a great companion video for Climate Towns recent video on Saudi Arabia's green washing.(cool to see him included at 1:45)
were huge Climate Town fans, his content is always fantastic :)
Have seen this sort of video and research before, its great to see more about it adding the its authenticity! I hope the people will start seeing through the nonsense they're sold and make real changes that have impacts, but I fear the powerful companies will simply not allow it.
But they aren't telling the truth about the go green campaign with solar and wind farms, all the governments pushing it are only pointing out the pro's but not disclosing the cons. It's not carbon neutral to make and export or to run, a lot of it is just lies as they claim their country is lowering their Co2 output but in reality are just transferring where the emissions are created. They transport the mined materials to a country like China that are pumping out emissions because they aren't part of the farce, they claim to be a developing country to get away with it or just blatantly say no, then the goods are made their then have to be transported all around the world. Wind farms require diesel for the motors that get them turning to begin with and oil to lubricate whilst running, that's why when they carch on fire they burn for ages. Solar panels create silica dust which is as healthy as asbestos, they are made from coal and quartz, then require more coal to burn to produce, the only renewable part really is renewing them when their lifespan is over, they claim to be 95% recyclable but only 5% are recycled so they still go to landfill, windfarm blades are being crushed up to use in furnaces to create cement, so billowing out smoke. And at the end of the day these renewables still require the mining and emissions output. It's just basically replacing one bad with another bad but as long as it sounds good people believe it is good
As someone getting a degree in forestry, my natural resource management had a big focus on carbon credits. The term for what shell and others are doing circumventing responsibility through loopholes is called, leakage. The majority of replanting nonprofits are not legit and most are harming the environment by killing biodiversity. Restoring the environment is very, very, expensive. It is cheaper to do large scale with the higher initial upfront cost than small scale over time. I've noticed one major trend, investors are not held accountable for any investments that cause environmental harm. There are people like me, who want to fix shit, but can't because everyone is so insanely greedy, they only care about their profits and how to pull one over on another for a buck. There needs to be major change, but even then it may already be too late. Yet, still someone needs to be held accountable.
Additionally, many forest management methods are demonized and attacked by people who know *nothing* about the environment. Slash and burn, a common practice in South America, one being stamped out by governments. Slash and burn is typical with agroforestry and home gardens (not raised flower beds), and this practice actually increases biodiversity. Fires are a natural part of the system, while many wildfires are man caused, it can be argued our ancestors used fire in the landscape for hunting, etc. so it co-evolved with us. But extreme fire suppression for decades has caused immense harm.
Last point: Everything that feels broken seems to be anything regarding paper-pushing jobs and bureaucracy. Which makes sense why the people pushing papers and writing the bureaucracy are also the ones making the most money.
Studying this stuff in school years from now is going to be hellish
Well that is optimistic that there is going to be schools years from now.
If school actually did teach this, I think it would be enjoyable, but it seems unlikely. Corporations already have the education system by the neck. Look at Adobe.
I despise Shell as much as the next guy but this issue doesn't seem specific to Shell. The whole carbon offseting genre within the ESG industry is shady as hell.
A very large portion of teslas value is derived from them earning and selling carbon credits to perpetuate this problem too, such a disgrace all of this is.
Yeah definitely, I think they're just using shell as an example to keep the focus of the video narrow
Shady implies there's there is room to believe something could be evil. There's no doubt it is.
I came across this channel because I was watching a lot of neo and IMPERIAL's content, I have been a consistent viewer ever since, when you upload it's automatically a good day
When it said, the company's CEO is a former investement banker, I knew it was a scam. Anything that is done by an investement banker is a scam, as they have no skillsets other than being a scamster.
Es freut mich so sehr, dass dieser Kanal von euch so schnell wächst. Ihr habt das verdient!
There is a source of energy that could be used to replace fossil fuels quickly. Sadly, successful lobbying made it hard and expensive to build this type of power plants. Some countries even decided to stop using this particular source of energy - I’m looking at you, Germany! Also,this source of energy happens to be the only one that can successfully replace fossil fuels without the need of any imaginary fictional technology, and has the lowest carbon emissions of absolutely all sources of energy.
yeah, nuclear is the best
Nuclear has its own issues though. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, but it comes with its own consequences.
@@thesilentpearl8575 examples, I can think of it taking a long time to build, therefore needing things like solar and wind to transition to nuclear
@@skoovee solar and wind are better alternatives than nuclear for sure
@@thesilentpearl8575 No they are not, they are a good transition into nuclear
addicted to your content. found you channel not long ago and been consuming your videos, they are so well made and sometimes the hidden jokes are the best
Shell's Marketing department doesn't like this.
I'm glad you do these deep diving researches that reveal the things going on behind the curtains of cooperation websites! Keep up the good work. I love it!
I think it's also interesting to think about how rich these companies are.
If you just look at how expensive an small ad in a local newspaper is, you realize why the big ad space is only used by huge companies.
Shell and friends (who are all very smart with money) believe it to be more profitable to spend (read: "throw away") millions and millions on international ad campaigns with shameless propaganda, instead of actually working on the problem.
Just imagine for a second what solutions these super companies could come up if they actually tried.
Why should I, middle class person, struggling to just get by, pay extra money to Shell? It's insane.
Late night upload. Loving it
prolly targeting the American audience with the upload times!
What's funny Pilipinas Shell(Shell Philippines) doesn't bother doing these greenwashing campaign here. They know the population is still highly reliant on fossil fuels, but there is slow shift towards simple mobility(walking, biking, mass transport), and demand for end of fossil fuel reliance.
I've said for a while that carbon credits should only be available for directly sequestered carbon. If they directly deposited organic waste from paper, etc, into the ground rather than have it be released, then that's a credit. Every tonne of carbon (biochar) deposited into the forests should be the credit; not just a threat that they'd cut it down otherwise
The fact that Shell wants us to believe that the trees they "save" will just _Ctrl+A Delete_ all their CO2 from the atmosphere is so sad that it's almost funny again
Lol
Carbon is not pollution
@@guillermoelnino saaaaay what now?
@@Grasslehoff Just because a politician puts on a lab coat doesn't mean what he says is truth.
@guillermoelnino the fuck are you on right now? Anything becomes pollution if there's too much of it.
Stupid people too, evidently.
Only 2mins in an love this already! Not sure how this doesn't have more views or subs. No AI voices, not just stock images, and images that actually match what's on the screen! Keep it up mate, good quality!
This is leaving the fact that how Shell destroyed the entire country of Nigeria and continues to do so
can you recommend any videos or articles?
@@mmmmmmmmaria check out "how one company destroyed an entire country" by moon
Carbon credits are BS but don’t act we just use crude oil for gasoline. That’s beyond over simplification, petroleum is used for/in almost everything you touch on a daily basis. There would be no shell is there was no demand for these products.
The moral conundrum is, that despite the concept of a carbon neutral policy, any body who does a campain about "saving a nature area" is just them possibly not letting extra emissions get freed, and instead justify with that their own emissions, as if the emissions are not still happening.
These bodys of companies or even countries obviously have done a great job of banishing this fact into the shodow realm.
Two thoughts. The first is that trees actively absorb huge amounts of CO2, not just store it. Every new leaf or branch sprout is built on the carbon atom it absorbed from the atmosphere as CO2. The second is that CO2 is not the problem. A deep deep dive into what's happening will show that several planets in our solar system are undergoing climate change in the last ten years also. Every planet has warmed up 0.5 - 1.0 degrees C in the last 6-7 years, starting with Pluto/Neptune (pick whichever) and slowly moving towards the sun. The winds on every planet have changed, some stopping altogether or completely reversing (Neptune). Pluto had a very thin atmosphere but it has collapsed recently. Jupiter's winds have changed and slowly are eating away at the "Great Red Spot". And so on. The Earth is just in the midst of these solar system changes, but to acknowledge this doesn't make any money.
In addition, wild fires and volcanos in recent years are pumping out so much CO2 that what we do is pale in comparison. What humans do is but a drop in a bucket compared to what's been happening. But, acknowledging any of this doesn't make any money either.
It's like saying: buy our fuel now, or these poor trees WILL be cut down and you will be the culprit for it 🤨.
But its us normal citizens who get hit by "world saving" policies.
anyone who tries to tell you theyre trying to change instead of just doing the changes is always either lying, trying to cover something up, or both
Great video. Thank you! Carbon credits to me always smelled of scam.
Would be interesting to know, if there is ANY kind of backlash for the Dutch Royal Family.
Shell left for England so it no longer is royal Shell. Which saved the royals from having to make the decision to retract the title themselves.
Shell also damaged multiple villages in the Netherlands without repercussions. Accountability is not the strong suit of the Netherlands
The idea of associating credits to a theoretical CO2 emission that doesn't even exist is completely absurd! It's like me saying "I'm giving you credits that offset the water you use by making sure no theoretical water is being wasted in the deserts".
I am disappointed in kari i feel since she is a ex mythbuster so surely unlike a lot celebrities who promote things the don't understand. In this case she probably knows is all bs she is not a stupid person
0:20 “I said, load me up 🤑💸”
NYP lmfao
true
My favorite carbon credit are the credits issued for "planning" to take a flight and then canceling it
The implicit issue with carbon credits if you take the claims at face value, is that they simply can't be remotely functional as a proportional response to emissions, because they arent reversing deforestation or increasing the rate of carbon capture at all, but reducing the loss. And the current trajectory of the climate is that it will deteriorate, not recover, even if all deforestation stopped and emissions stayed the same.
So assuming carbon credits are universally adopted, honestly, and accurately reflect the carbon footprint of the production which they are tied to, *even* if that involves the expansion of protected areas to every single stretch of net-negstive-carbon land on the planet - the climate disaster continues, just doesnt accelerate. To say nothing of these production systems eventually being in conflict with the very protections they pay for and the lack of any apparent intention to scale carbon credits to protect most or all of the natural carbon sinks on the planet, just paying more to protect the same three or four relative slivers of land per company.
Similarly as these companies inevitably switch to rebewables, for whatever reason, these protectiosn tied to the market system dry up and create opportunities for exploitation - i.e. the very adoption if renewables removes a market motication to be sustainable for other production systems like palm oil palntation etc.
Talks about switching to renewables. Doesn't even show the actual solution to the energy pollution crisis: nuclear energy. Wind and solar are a joke compared to the output of nuclear energy. Due to how much nuclear produces, the amount of pollution generated per kilowatt hour is less. That's the most important metric when talking about how clean it is because you will have to build production to meet demand. And nuclear energy is one of the most misunderstood and fear mongered subjects.
istg imagine being one of the scientists during the 70s and discovering the concept of fission, seeing how much raw energy potential there is, handing over your research to the government, and then half a century later we’re still in the fucking industrial revolution burning coal and oil for energy
The quickest way to transition away from fossil fuels is Nuclear. Nuclear can be 100% safe when handled properly or using specific designs such as magmatic salt core.
In that type of Nuclear plant meltdown never reaches ground water and encases the hazardous material in a block of crystalized salt, leaving it inert.
Electric cars can then receive all of their energy from a completely green source while we slowly set up renewable sources which take a lot more planning and cost more to implement watt per watt.
As for Electric cars being extremely hazardous and using rare materials we receive from bad countries, switch to salt based or mechanical, we can deal with any efficiency loss with the cheap energy provided by Nuclear power while we look for new alternatives, such as building cities around a rail and personal carts system all connected to the grid, they are more efficient then cars anyway.
There is no complete transition away from fossil fuels though. They don’t make batteries that are strong enough and yet light enough to fit into ships and planes. The power to weight ratio isn’t suitable for these methods of travel.
Which may not seem like a big deal but there are countries who rely on imports of various food products to avoid starvation. Or businesses that rely on the petroleum chemicals, produced from refined crude oil, to make the goods we use every day (asphalt as an example). We still rely on various metals and minerals that can only be shipped using large cargo ships. The quickest mode of global travel is still through the air and it isn’t going to change anytime soon.
Also switching to Nuclear and electric cars isn’t really quick. Unless by quick you mean decades.
@@INoticeTooMuch1
-First limit plane use to intercontinental trains for every thing else. Even excluding gas use, the C word times proved there are more negative affects.
-You could also reintroduce the zeppelin. to replace cruise ships, we can make them 100% safe now as an episode of Archer joked about, and they can be run off 100% solar.
-For boats. If they are smaller limit them to wind and solar or battery packs for shorter distances, there are also some amazing forgotten designs like the boat which uses the flow of a river to go upstream, if they are larger such as cargo freighters, then either give them the good old nuclear sub treatment or better yet, there is that mixture that Thunderf00t made a video about which uses Natural Gas mixed with sea water to create an out put of nearly gasoline's power and a chlorine based anti greenhouse aerosol.
-Asphalt is recyclable... also big brain moment, cars suck. If you make home office mandatory where it can be done without issues such as office jobs, you will lower the amount of traffic we have on the roads. This is an immediate fix. If this "takes away jobs" mandate a doubling of the pay of all worker pay under a certain yearly so that everyone works half the time or less. Tribe members and even serfs of the medieval era worked only 16-17 hours on average per week more in the summer basically zero in winter. Our tech is way better we should be working less then them.
That means less cars to build, less asphalt needed and even a quicker overturn to electric cars since the amount needed to be produced is lower.
Finally, cities should be changed to an elevated or underground rail only system with small pods, we already dig deep holes to make streets, might be a better design. Intercity could see the small pods hook together? there are multiple possible design choices there.
But this would mean you could control everything automatically and public transport would come at the press of a button.
As for transport trucks bringing goods to stores. We have the technology now to automate that, put a rail under commercial districts and bring goods to the basements of stores. Hand a robotic system unload the packages based on QR code scanning and automated delivery programs.
i would love to see how carbon neutral google actually is since they were the first massive company to claim it. btw great video guys
The Last Week tonight episode on this was good
Each video i’m more and more impressed by the quality of investigative journalism that you independently provide
Overall good video. However the “BPs core business must end asap” is pretty irresponsible. People will think that is tomorrow when that simply isn’t possible. Renewables have been a huge failure until we can store that energy efficiently, and we would have to dig up so many metals out of the ground for the next 30 years it would do more harm through that time.
I’ve been binging your videos and Man U turn a big topic into small videos u guys are doing amazing
Wow, that's so insanely gaslight-y, though I would expect nothing less from the fossil fuel industry at this point...
19:29 The $220 per ton of CO2 is not the price required to offset a ton of CO2 but rather the societal cost of releasing that amount of CO2. So that is inaccurate. Please clarify if I'm wrong with specific sources
I'm usually watching the german "version",but this version is as funny and informative as the other.
I think I am going to watch more of the english videos.Just a little help for you:)And a new sub.
Keep up the amazing work up!❤
Where can you watch the German videos?
@@lxedk the german original "simplicissimus"
Let's say I have a farm that's half fields and half forested. I can start a carbon offset project clammy to protect that for us from being cut down and turned into a field in exchange for money. What these projects will often do then is remarket the same forest and pledge not to turn into pasture land, generating twice the funds from the same land.
Amazing work, keep it up. Love the format
I saw a poster a few months back in a gas station here in sask Canada. A poster from shell talking about "saving the rainforest". Thought it was funny, glad your shining a light on this.
It’s like saying you are protecting the Sahara from being settled when literally no one was ever considering living there. Or volunteering tutoring time for Harvard students and taking credit for their success, lol
I bought this plot of ocean to prevent it from drying out
The irony of the way they pronounce "Katingan" sounding like "cutting down"...
And thats why the EU is trying to ban greenwashing
So is it the oil companies that are bad? If people want and need oil, someone has to extract it. Unless they don't do it in a much dirtier way than other companies do, then it's okay, isn't it?
Irrelevant. This is still a big lie from them. Actual offsets would cost 8 to 40 times this amount. Even if you absolutely love big oil, you should be able to admit that selling a cheap lie is wrong.
@tristanridley1601 Lying is obviously wrong, but in this case it doesn't matter. Nobody buys oil because of greenwashing. Oil is just needed. Otherwise just boycott this company if they are lying to you.
@@tristanridley1601 if it fools a climate cultist I'm all for it.
Awesome video about an important topic. The issue makes you sad and angry and yet I felt entertained watching the video. Thanks ❤
Basically big companies extorting
They are just taking advantage of woke people. Good for them.
And of course, guess what Natixis’ CEO’s “early life” section says…
These people are getting out of hand.
Ive got YT Premium yet I got a double-ad?! 😅
(Not counting the Brilliant ad)
I'm usually watching the german version,but this version is as funny and informative as the other.
I think I am going to watch more of the english videos.(Of course I keep watching the german version too).Just a little help for you:)And a new sub.
Keep up the amazing work up!❤
Crazy that big companies still can pull such things of. Boycot them!
My father (A USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress Pilot/Aircraft Commander) had a bombing mission on one of their refineries in Ploesti,Romania back in 1944
I get that the pay would have been really good, but I really expected Kari to be better than to shill for oil companies.
For anyone consider an ELECTRIC Vehicle please do your research on the amount of resources, how these resources are mined, where and by who, it takes to make a battery. Please also remember that at the end of the day your electric vehicle is actually a fossil fuel vehicle because at least in the united states more then 70% of electricity is produced using oil and coal. Also please consider that lithium isnt very stable in colder climates. Also remember that electric vehicles have batteries that need replacement significantly sooner then a gasoline engine will. Please also consider that 80% of a gasoline car can be recycled and that while you can recycle lithium batteries its extremely costly, energy intensive, and not very practical. Thanks. A gasoline car owner.
If you worked in oil and gas you would know that shell is probably considered one of the highest standard companies ( at least in Canada ) you wouldn't believe what some are getting away with
@codypendency9482 could you explain what the rest are getting away with?
I have known petroleum engineers, rig hands and geologist who worked overseas for part of their career returning back to North America later in life.
Many of them shed tears talking about the environmental and social tragedies they have seen in the oilfields of the world. Rivers of oil, black daytime skies, millions of animals lying dead in fields/lakes, innocents killed, workers dying young from work related disease.
If there is necessary oil, let it be from North America, NW Europe or Australia.
But that will not practically happen any time soon so we do need to keep up pressure on the entire industry to improve...as well as just stop burning their products.
Side note: I get really angry when obstructionists talk about the humanitarian consequences of materials for batteries and solar panels etc.
FFS what a stupid argument.
Completely ignores all the tragedy the fossil fuel industry has brought to the world as if it is somehow any better.
Ernsthaft Leute... Die Stimme ist euer Markenzeichen und hat derben wieder-Erkennungswert, solltet ihr in fern weiterhin nutzen...cheers
You can't just offset carbon emissions by paying for some forests to been saved, the only kind of "carbon credit" that I'd consider legitimate is an actual tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere with carbon capture, converted into a storable form (e.g. calcium carbonates) and buried deep underground, where it shouldn't have been dug and drilled from in the first place
Except the energy needed to manually remove 1 tonne of carbon from the atmosphere puts about 0.8 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.
Carbon Capture can be summed up as "Let's use a huge amount of energy reducing some of the emissions from our energy production". Basic math only a petroleum executive would love because it means we burn even more of their fuels.
The only solutions not necessarily in this order, more of done all at the same time:
1. Stop harming natural carbon sinks
2. Rebuild some of the natural carbon sinks we destroyed in the past
3. Stop burning fuels in all ways possible
4. Reduce consumption of pretty much everything else as well.
5. Reduce the income gap among all citizens of the nation and the world so this reduction does not cause global social tragedy
6. End all war and global conflict, racism, bigotry and religious persecution so we can fraction all the world's military and start cooperating towards this goal
7. Wait for nature to balance this out and hope we have not caused an extinction or bloom of some microorganism that kills us all.
If we cannot do ALL of these things NOW there is no avoiding mass human tragedy and the looming extinction of the species. Good luck everyone!
@@5353Jumper Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that effectively remove 0.2 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere?
@Voyatrix maybe. Though there may also be several other things we could do with the same amount of energy, effort, materials and money that would prevent 2.0 tonnes from going into the atmosphere. Now is not the time to be investing in the least effective solutions.
I used to watch myth busters reruns for hours when I was younger😢
Noch nie so früh
Auf jeden Fall.
One of the reasons that this kind of marketing works is that Television does not support viewer comments.
Disappointed to see Kari do that.
I back packed through south east Asia in the 90s when that massive hooo-haa happened in Indonesia with the burning, it was intense for sure with all the smoke... I caught a boat from Singapore to Sumatra then eventually a bus journey to the southern side, I couldn't comprehend how much jungle had been destroyed and in it's place were trees that spanned hours of bus travel.... unreal...and that was 3 decades ago....I just can't imagine the destruction that has passed from then ‼️
totally surprised that since shell is a petrol company, they would be doing some shady marketing and destroying the forests
The biggest problem we have on this world is that the dream to possess as much money and luxuries as possible, while doing little or nothing to contribute to society, is nothing special. It's held by the average person. Those same people will watch this video and shake their fist at the shell company logo. Then they will book a journey on a cruise ship for their next holiday.
This is why capitalism is such a good fit for humanity. And it's why it's extremely difficult to end our destructive behaviour as a species. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" - that's gonna be the epitaph on humanities gravestone.
I invest in shell because they make great profits of dumb woke people and they pay decent dividends.
Capitalism cannot solve and has no desire to solve this cataclysm that it designed for us
CO2 is not hurting the planet.
Shell are scumbags because they are lying about their efforts. Agreed.
But CO2 reduction efforts are not necessary. It's a scam propagated by government, and people have been manipulated to believe it.
Can't believe you're the same guy from Simplicissimus! Thank you for helping me learn German!
you must be kidding ,your advising to make "MoRe SuStAiNaBlE EnRgie " your sustainable energy is literally more polluting then shell and all the oil company's combined , do you know what digging up the lithium for battery's and the silver and the minerals to make a solar panel do to the earth ? do you know the sheer number of solar panels we need to make to offset the human consumption ? do you know that solar panels cannot be recycled ,their life is 25 years and they lose 20% of their capacity so after 25 years ,if it survives that long you have billions of tons of unrecyclable material.
the solution is more nuclear power plants ,they produce about 20 tons of waste every year and they provide millions of houses with electricity with virtually no co2 emissions , the other one for cars is sodium based battery's ,they are made with literal salt and more recyclable then lithium cells .
but i guess you dont care becoz you dont live in africa .... i do .
Global warming =money laundering
There is also one more side .. just as FYI.. : Shell has actually invested and running few solar Farms in Australia. Now time has come for investments maturity .. so they are simply just selling the projects at a high return.. in the process I’m sure they have been claiming crazy amount of Tax offsets.
The lies that these companies make are insane!
Get these damn companies to deal with their own wastes. We need to get companies that uses plastics to handle recycling plastics directly and these fossil fuel companies to handle direct-carbon capture.