Would we set fire to works of art, destroy manuscripts, smash ancient ruins with a sledgehammer?
When Isis and the Taliban destroyed symbols of our culture, we were shocked, more shocked even than by the gruesome brutality of their beheadings.
If we are shocked, then why are we tolerating Shell setting fire to the planet?
We have seen the last week extreme temperature in India, with many thousands dying. That is of nothing with what we will experience with thermal runaway if global temperature rise goes beyond 2C. Even with 2C, we are going to see more violent and extreme weather events.
If we are to keep global temperature rises below 2C, we have to keep 80% of known carbon reserves in the ground.
The worth of a company such as Shell, is the value of its known carbon reserves. If it cannot recover, then Shell is worthless.
More extreme and hazardous carbon deposits, mountain top removal, tar sands, fracking, deep water, Amazon, Arctic, are more expensive than renewables (and the cost of renewables is falling).
An oil spill in the Arctic is unlikely to be recoverable.
Shell has already had one major incident on the Arctic.
Why are we permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic?
- A Fossil Fuel Free World is Possible
- In the Face of Shell’s Arctic Drilling Plans, Seattle Activists Speak Out
- Fossil industry faces a perfect political and technological storm
- Fossil fuel divestment is rational, says former Shell chairman
- India heatwave hits poorest hardest
- How renewable energy in South Africa is quietly stealing a march on coal