There's been a lot of pressure by environmental activists to get fossil fuel
companies to invest in alternative forms of energy, stop focusing so
much on oil and gas.
And there have been some victories over the years, or
at least it seemed like there were.
You might recall headlines like this one from back in February of 2021,
greener pastures, Shell plans steady drop in oil business.
Isn't that great?
Shell, that's a major oil company.
They're gonna be getting out of oil.
And you know what?
They were proud of it too,
because they actually put out their own personal press releases.
Shell accelerates drive for net-zero emissions with customer-first strategy.
Customer first.
Not anybody else.
Not the board, not the investors, the customer.
Okay, so that was all back in 2021.
It's been a couple of years.
They're probably well on their way towards that net-zero thing that got them so
many positive headlines, right?
No, they announced this year that they're gonna be halting their plans to cut
oil production each year for the rest of this decade, locking in tons, literally
many tons, many tons of emissions throughout the rest of this decade.
In fact, they're gonna be investing $40 billion in oil and
gas production between 2023 and 2035,
compared with just 10 to 15 billion in low carbon products.
I hope that that's a really efficient investment if they're gonna reach net-zero
like they said they were going to a few years ago.
By the way, they had previously said that their oil and
gas production would fall by 1 to 2% each year through 2030.
And the thing is, honestly, we'd already gotten some heads up.
Even just a year after the initial claims, they already seemed like they were
expanding their gas business despite their pledges.
And now we find out that, no, they're gonna put a lot more money.
Well, maybe there's a good reason.
Maybe their oil production is way less bad for the environment or something.
No, it's just they think that they're gonna make more money that way.
Literally their CEO is coming out and
just saying they're emphasizing financial returns for investors.
He told the New York stock exchange that he wanted to, quote,
reward our shareholders today and far into the future.
And while saying that he wanted to lower emissions,
he also repeatedly emphasized his belief that oil and gas would be required for
the long term, which is a cool sentence, except that it sort of ends early.
Required for the long term period.
Required for the long term for what exactly?
For the long term survival of the human species?
No, for high profits.
Maybe that's what it requires.
But I do like that he's rewarding our shareholders today and
far into the future.
Not that far into the future, because eventually those shareholders will be
scrapping with marauders for a little bit of water that was found at the bottom of
a jar or something, but for a little bit, they're gonna make some money.
What do you guys think?
>> I think they tricked us, man.
I think net-zero was a code word for them.
Net stood for not even trying to get the zero carbon emission.
We didn't know.
They actually did speed up this process with increasing their investments in gas
and oil.
I think, man, I am terrified about what day I'm gonna wake up and
the world is gonna be too hot for us to live here.
And I know that sounds a little freaked out, but I'm a country boy who loves trees
and I see the effect of what cutting down trees and also digging for oil is causing.
We are dropping ice.
Antarctica in our lifetime.
We're gonna see Antarctica in the summer months without any ice in it.
That means polar bears are dying.
The net effect of us allowing this type of debacley to continue
is unbelievable to me.
We are in a dangerous position and the fact that people play with the climate,
I just don't know what to say.
I'm nervous.
>> I think it's funny that Shell is talking about all this stuff.
The shareholders, the shareholders, the shareholders.
Listen, first and foremost you came out and made a promise and a pledge
to change your company, which of course caused more people to buy your stock.
When you now come back and say, we are not doing that,
those people who had invested now under false pretenses,
I don't know, kind of sounds like a lawsuit to me.
So that's one problem they got to worry about.
Second issue is that any one of these oil companies, if it's Shell, Exxon, BP,
Chevron, it doesn't matter, they would be rich beyond their wildest dreams
if they finally were the ones to take that step and say, you know what?
We're devoting half of our workforce not to drilling for
oil, they're making solar panels.
We Chevron, Shell, whoever it is, Exxon, we're the only name in solar panels now.
You know us, you trust us.
It would be the biggest financial boom for those companies they have ever seen.
And it's been that way.
They could have started it when the technology was evolving over a decade ago
and not only made tons of money for their greedy little selves, but
accidentally saved the planet in the process.
And they said, no, we'll stick with the easy money.
We already got the drills going and
now we're just hurtling towards that point of no return at full speed.
>> Does feel like it, man.
I like your idea, by the way, of the class action lawsuit.
But I messaged my legal contact and he doesn't think that it's a good idea.
It's Tom Fitton and if he says, no, then you can take that to the bank.
But anyway, look, it's not just Shell.
Shell looks particularly bad this week, but there was a report by ESG Book and
looking at these sorts of claims that have been made over the past few years by
large corporations, they found that large companies are either more likely
to contribute to extreme levels of warming or not disclosing their greenhouse gas
emissions at all years after making these sorts of pledges.
Because it turns out that you get the good PR either way.
You'll be watching a news channel and you'll see like an ad for BP or
something about how they're investing in solar, yeah, you can just say stuff,
it turns out, and they'll take your money on CNN, they'll run your ad.
You don't have to actually do it.
Anyway, by the way, before we move on, I do also want to let you know we can't play
the video, unfortunately, but Greta Thunberg was speaking
at the Climate Conference in Germany this week, and she was talking
about the lack of political will that has led to seeming narrowing window to limit
overall global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels.
She called the not phasing out of fossil fuels that we're seeing in decisions like
with Shell, a death sentence to countless people and already a death sentence to
people in areas that are being affected more greatly by climate change already.
By the way, to remind you of how significant this is, even though I
know our audience is more likely to know this than most people, the UN said this
week that 110 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide.
Now that's due to a number of different things, including war, but
climate effects, disasters, catastrophes are another reason for that.
They say that 70% of the world's refugees and
displaced people come from some of the most climate vulnerable countries.
I will remind you by the way, of stuff that we've covered in the past,
including the floods in Pakistan,
absolutely devastating massive drought in the Horn of Africa.
At least 364 million people this year will need emergency assistance just to survive.
But Shell shareholders are gonna do slightly better for
the next few years and that is, after all, what life is about.