Post by nurefatehi on Feb 26, 2024 17:42:05 GMT -10
Last week, Royal Dutch Shell received a nasty lesson in how not to conduct a Twitter poll by asking users of the popular app what they would do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The survey sparked a furious outburst of outrage from climate action advocates, who accused the company of deflecting its own responsibility for the climate crisis. However, the survey raises some important points about the ability of individual action to make a difference to global emissions, even if they are not exactly the points Shell intended to make. A strange climate action survey… Shell's survey has caused problems since it was launched on November 2, in part because Shell refused to provide any introduction or context for the questions. The company's tweet simply said: 'What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions?' and offered participants four options: “offset emissions,” “stop flying,” “buy an electric vehicle,” and “renewable energy.” Only the Shell team can say what they hoped to get from that simple approach, except that the poll seemed more like an attempt to start a conversation than any meaningful attempt to gauge public opinion. After listing the options, the tweet suggested continuing the conversation in the #EnergyDebate Twitter thread. The poll received only 199 votes before Shell closed it, possibly due to the overwhelming torrent of negative responses, numbering in the thousands.
Thunberg and US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were among the high-profile climate activists who put their Twitter stamp of disapproval on Nigeria WhatsApp Number List the survey, drawing even more unwanted attention to Shell. When is an option not an option? Shell and other fossil fuel stakeholders are ultimately responsible for much of the climate crisis, not least because their own scientists confirmed and correctly predicted the impact of oil and gas extraction on global warming decades ago. The decarbonization of the global economy is already underway, partly at the insistence of activist investors. Shell and other leading fossil energy companies are pivoting to renewables, and advocates insist they must accelerate the shift to avoid catastrophic climate change in the coming years. However, if Shell's intention was to deflect blame onto individuals, the survey was a peculiar way of doing so. The four options presented in the survey are not really individual options at all. Access to electric vehicles and renewable energy depends on the availability of the technology. Similarly, access to compensation depends on markets and financial instruments. In fact, the offsets exceed the budget of many households, especially those already stretched to the limit during the COVID-19 crisis. Of the four options, flying is the only one that leaves some leeway for individual choice, especially when it comes to vacations and short trips. Even that is somewhat misleading.
Many people rarely or never fly in the first place, either because they don't need to, can't afford it, or are afraid of it. On the other side of the coin, many people who fly regularly have no choice unless they plan to change careers. Additionally, the whole issue of flights and carbon emissions could be discussed in the coming years as the airline industry transitions to biofuels, batteries and fuel cells. What Shell left out In any case, the survey puts the weight of action right where it should be: on the shoulders of Shell and other historical polluters. To be clear, the survey does not absolve individuals of their responsibility to contribute to a more sustainable future. If Shell really wanted to shift responsibility onto individuals, it could have listed the actual choices that individuals make every day, with varying degrees of access based on their financial situation and other circumstances. Some of these choices can also have a ripple effect, if they help grow the market for more sustainable products. For example, energy experts have long recognized that energy efficiency is one of the fruits of decarbonization, whether it is simply changing a light bulb or caulking the windows, or investing in HVAC, home appliances, etc. energy-efficient or a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. Choosing reusable bottles and other long-lasting items over disposable ones is another area where people can influence manufacturers.
Thunberg and US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were among the high-profile climate activists who put their Twitter stamp of disapproval on Nigeria WhatsApp Number List the survey, drawing even more unwanted attention to Shell. When is an option not an option? Shell and other fossil fuel stakeholders are ultimately responsible for much of the climate crisis, not least because their own scientists confirmed and correctly predicted the impact of oil and gas extraction on global warming decades ago. The decarbonization of the global economy is already underway, partly at the insistence of activist investors. Shell and other leading fossil energy companies are pivoting to renewables, and advocates insist they must accelerate the shift to avoid catastrophic climate change in the coming years. However, if Shell's intention was to deflect blame onto individuals, the survey was a peculiar way of doing so. The four options presented in the survey are not really individual options at all. Access to electric vehicles and renewable energy depends on the availability of the technology. Similarly, access to compensation depends on markets and financial instruments. In fact, the offsets exceed the budget of many households, especially those already stretched to the limit during the COVID-19 crisis. Of the four options, flying is the only one that leaves some leeway for individual choice, especially when it comes to vacations and short trips. Even that is somewhat misleading.
Many people rarely or never fly in the first place, either because they don't need to, can't afford it, or are afraid of it. On the other side of the coin, many people who fly regularly have no choice unless they plan to change careers. Additionally, the whole issue of flights and carbon emissions could be discussed in the coming years as the airline industry transitions to biofuels, batteries and fuel cells. What Shell left out In any case, the survey puts the weight of action right where it should be: on the shoulders of Shell and other historical polluters. To be clear, the survey does not absolve individuals of their responsibility to contribute to a more sustainable future. If Shell really wanted to shift responsibility onto individuals, it could have listed the actual choices that individuals make every day, with varying degrees of access based on their financial situation and other circumstances. Some of these choices can also have a ripple effect, if they help grow the market for more sustainable products. For example, energy experts have long recognized that energy efficiency is one of the fruits of decarbonization, whether it is simply changing a light bulb or caulking the windows, or investing in HVAC, home appliances, etc. energy-efficient or a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. Choosing reusable bottles and other long-lasting items over disposable ones is another area where people can influence manufacturers.