5
Shell to renewables: I don't want to see you anymore. Don't call me, don't text me.
In a stunning yet not entirely unexpected move, Royal Dutch Shell PLC recently announced it will withdraw its support from any future investment in renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydrogen. Rather, it will set its sights on oil, gas and second generation biofuels and *maybe *some Canadian tar sands investments.
Too bad no one warned their marketing folks who got whacked by UK's Advertising Standards Authority (and on this blog) last year for illustrating flowers emerging from a Shell refinery stack, a predecessor to its Clearing the Air Campaign.
Citing renewables' struggle "to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio," it is obvious that the world's second largest non-state controlled oil company is full of biofuel cowpie like all the other pretty green oil companies in overstating its commitment to a sustainable energy future.
In 2008 it had only invested $1.7 billion of its overall $32 billion investments in renewables anyhow.
This is where shareholders need to get off their collective derriere and act to force
Shell, as well as other companies they invest in, to act with courage, foresight and intelligence. In reading comments in the UK from this story, one twenty-something said it best:
Actually, a lot less of your federal income tax money goes to the oil industry than you may think. Most of it goes back to the Federal Reserve bankers. Oil production is much older than Federal Income Tax. The really sad, sick part is that the government investment for oil production is largely put on the books as "National Debt"... further bankrupting our nation while your hard-earned tax money merely goes into the pockets of the corporate ruling elite, without making the tiniest scratch in the national deficit. Sad huh? Makes me want to grab torches and pitchforks!
Wow. Thanks for sharing. I'm guilty of falling for BP's "green" message - I prefer it. But I haven't looked too closely to see how real their green position is. Ah, marketing.
Shell, as quoted in this article, like so many other oil advocates always go back to the statement that the "free market chooses oil", not alternatives. This is not true. Hundreds of Billions, maybe even over a trillion dollars a year are spent from the federal government to get oil to the market, supporting activities that bring us a lot of our oil, if they were not done, we would not have that oil. The short list, aircraft carrier battle groups patrolling Middle East oil shipping lanes, military bases in oil countries, troops guarding oil pipelines, wars, police actions, foreign aid to oil countries, foreign policy with oil countries, ports and canals, maritime support, environmental cleanups, subsidies for exploration,...... All those things get paid by what comes out of my paycheck. And don't forget about the trade deficit caused by buying all that imported oil. If the oil companies had to do build and operate their own navies, hire their own armies, and all that other infrastructure and foreign policy stuff, then they would have to charge us for it at the pump.
Aternatives don't have all those military and foreign relations costs. If all those costs for oil were charged at the pump, then we would see a fair market fight between oil and alternatives.
People calling for alternatives call for new taxes on oil to even things up. We don't need to do more taxes. Just take the EXISTING taxes we already pay out of the income tax, and MOVE those from paychecks over to the pump and there it is, a fair market for alternatives. And then people could give themselves a tax cut, simply by using less gas.
If $500 billion is spent per year on oil out of the income tax, and we have 200 million income tax payers, this plan would take $2500 a year off of the income tax.
