this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
809 points (99.3% liked)

World News

32326 readers
628 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: [ https://archive.ph/G0ULZ ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] authed@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Is it even possible for a gas company to offset CO2 emissions? They would have to charge insane amounts

[–] bowser1035@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed, I feel like they probably abandoned the plan because they realized $100M wasn’t enough…

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they probably abandoned it because they only said they would do it because they thought it would increase their public appearance. Once they got the boost from saying they'd do it, if they just silently back out, it's unlikely that people notice and/or care anymore.... That's just how advertising works.

They probably never had any intention of actually following through to begin with.

[–] bowser1035@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I mean, it’s probably a little bit of both. It’s not like people will just stop buying gas in the near and medium-term, and once they got the goodwill and looked at their bottom line they realized that they could just keep the goodwill AND the money. Classic mega corporation move

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'll eat my fucking hat if Shell's follow-up here is to invest more money instead of less, absent state consequences forcing them to behave.

They are in the business of selling virgin oil. Anything they spend towards decarbonization hurts the selling of virgin oil. They know it. The rest of this shit is just advertising and they will terminate the campaign as soon as it stops performing. They can just do more adbuys for advertorial content through the NYT if there's any backlash.

load more comments (6 replies)