Some of the emissions made by companies is as a result of their operations. Sure, Shell’s pollution comes partially from cars fueled using Shell gas. OTOH, some of it also comes from huge tanker ships moving oil around the globe. Those tankers burn bunker fuel, which is extra awful for the environment. Theoretically, Shell could reduce its emissions by switching those tankers to use electric power, or they could use sails. But, they can get away with using bunker fuel, and it’s cheaper, so that’s what they do.
Having said that, if everybody stopped driving, Shell would no longer be burning fuel to move oil around the planet because there would be no market for that oil.
The choices companies make do matter, and generally the choices they make are purely based on profit, ignoring the long-term damage they do to the environment. It might be possible to pass laws that result in those companies switching to environmentally friendly methods of production. But, the governments of the world haven’t shown much of an appetite for that.
What’s difficult is that if people do stop driving and switch to say, electric bikes, there’s no good way of knowing how the electric bike company is from an environmental point of view. Maybe they source their batteries from a battery company that creates massive amounts of pollution in its battery making process. Unfortunately, especially with global supply chains, it’s really hard to know as a consumer how bad the companies you’re doing business with are to the environment.
I think electric shipping boats would have to be invented first.
And please dont tell me you dont have the critical thinking to figure out e-bike production is better environmentally than gas or even electric cars. Some process in making a bike frame that requires more energy than a car frame?
e-bike production is better environmentally than gas or even electric cars
It should be. But, my point is that you never know. Because consumers have no visibility into the supply chains of the companies they buy from, it could be that the company that makes the batteries uses the dirtiest, oldest coal generator at some stage in the process, and that the highly optimized supply chains for cars are actually better. I doubt it, but as a consumer we don’t really have any way to know, which is a problem.
As an example, it would seem crazy that a leaf blower is worse environmentally than a car. Leaf blowers are tiny, portable things, whereas cars have to move tons of steel, plastic and meat around. And, it’s true that leaf blowers burn less fuel per hour. OTOH, they use really primitive two-stroke engines that mix oil and fuel together in the combustion chamber and spit up to 1/3 of it out as unburned waste. A car, by contrast, has a catalytic converter, and has to pass rigorous emissions tests before it’s allowed out on the road. So, leaf blowers and similar two-stroke engine powered devices are a bigger contributor to smog in California than cars.
Some of the emissions made by companies is as a result of their operations. Sure, Shell’s pollution comes partially from cars fueled using Shell gas. OTOH, some of it also comes from huge tanker ships moving oil around the globe. Those tankers burn bunker fuel, which is extra awful for the environment. Theoretically, Shell could reduce its emissions by switching those tankers to use electric power, or they could use sails. But, they can get away with using bunker fuel, and it’s cheaper, so that’s what they do.
Having said that, if everybody stopped driving, Shell would no longer be burning fuel to move oil around the planet because there would be no market for that oil.
The choices companies make do matter, and generally the choices they make are purely based on profit, ignoring the long-term damage they do to the environment. It might be possible to pass laws that result in those companies switching to environmentally friendly methods of production. But, the governments of the world haven’t shown much of an appetite for that.
What’s difficult is that if people do stop driving and switch to say, electric bikes, there’s no good way of knowing how the electric bike company is from an environmental point of view. Maybe they source their batteries from a battery company that creates massive amounts of pollution in its battery making process. Unfortunately, especially with global supply chains, it’s really hard to know as a consumer how bad the companies you’re doing business with are to the environment.
I think electric shipping boats would have to be invented first.
And please dont tell me you dont have the critical thinking to figure out e-bike production is better environmentally than gas or even electric cars. Some process in making a bike frame that requires more energy than a car frame?
https://www.sustainable-ships.org/stories/2021/worlds-first-electric-cargo
It should be. But, my point is that you never know. Because consumers have no visibility into the supply chains of the companies they buy from, it could be that the company that makes the batteries uses the dirtiest, oldest coal generator at some stage in the process, and that the highly optimized supply chains for cars are actually better. I doubt it, but as a consumer we don’t really have any way to know, which is a problem.
As an example, it would seem crazy that a leaf blower is worse environmentally than a car. Leaf blowers are tiny, portable things, whereas cars have to move tons of steel, plastic and meat around. And, it’s true that leaf blowers burn less fuel per hour. OTOH, they use really primitive two-stroke engines that mix oil and fuel together in the combustion chamber and spit up to 1/3 of it out as unburned waste. A car, by contrast, has a catalytic converter, and has to pass rigorous emissions tests before it’s allowed out on the road. So, leaf blowers and similar two-stroke engine powered devices are a bigger contributor to smog in California than cars.