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.
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.
Add comment