I ran out of edit time,
I wanted to add that I just heard on NPR that the Republicans are making noises that they are willing to shut down the government if there is a deal in Paris to help undeveloped nations to deal with the issue. The willingness to [del]massacre the peasants[/del] not do anything to deal with the issue is still there and their guardians (the fossil fuel industry) needs more than just the Shell CEO to tell their congress critters to stuff it and to stop apologizing to them.
I don’t see there’s much van Beurden could do but resign. I would guess that you don’t get the job if you look like you’re squeamish.
What would happen if he resigned saying it was just a filthy business he didn’t want to be responsible for ?
It would be mega publicity, but he would be looking under his car every time he got in it for the rest of his life wouldn’t he ? OK no, that would be too obvious. Still, wouldn’t go down well.
Dick “Zeus” Cheney comes to mind.
I think you are missing the point; even with all the accusations launched at proponents of change like myself, we are not communists nor fascists, in reality most of the serious proponents of change do know that industry will be a part of than change.
It may be needed to go all RICO on the butts of just the fossil fuel industry but history shows that with pressure from both government and members of the industry is that change also does happen in the USA.
Pay triple the price for green energy and be the change you want to see.
A friend of mine’s father owned a smaller oil company in California many moons ago and he met Dick Cheney years before he was Vice President. He said when shaking his hand how Cheney had this crazy intensity or presence in his eyes, almost like looking him in the eyes and shaking his hands he felt like there was electricity in the air. Of course maybe it was just a pacemaker in Cheney’s chest or something. 
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Like if on many occasions I did not reported that the change will not be instant.
[/QUOTE]
No, I think you do know this. Sorry, I was really using your post to respond to the OP. Didn’t mean to imply that you were in the same boat.
Yeah, my bad there.
I think so as well. But it won’t be instant. As I’ve said many times, we need a market solution to this issue. A market solution with the government writing sane legislation and regulation and the various industries buying in, in conjunction with the populace in the various nations. Even with all of that it’s going to take time as this is going to be a major paradigm shift from what we’ve been doing for over a century now, and right now the tech just isn’t there wrt the cost and performance envelop. With market forces driving it, however, I think it will be, as demand will certainly drive companies to supply.
This is probably where we differ the most. You see it as analogous to the tobacco industry, but myself I don’t see that. I don’t think that the Big Oil™ companies are really the problem. Oh, they have certainly done similar things by trying to shift the public perceptions on AGW and muddy the waters wrt the science…no doubt of that at all…but in the end we’d still be here, IMHO, though with more of the real costs being shown in the market there would be more and more drivers for alternatives. However, even with the much greater costs in Europe we aren’t seeing those drivers or forces yet bring viable alternatives, so I have my doubts that those greater costs on Americans would magically show results. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t do it anyway, since I think we are both in agreement we should. To me, the biggest problem today is the lower cost of oil is impacting the market in what I think is a short term negative way wrt a shift to alternatives, and I would like to see (much as this would have a short or even medium term impact on the economy and on peoples pocketbooks) the government stepping in to increase taxes on fossil fuels (and using that money on encouraging VARIOUS alternatives, not just the pet ones of this or that faction in the government).
Anyway, sorry about using your post to address the OP…blame it on the massive amounts of turkey and carbs I ingested yesterday or my increasing old age. Both are probably true. 
In the United States and most other countries there is a basic split: some functions are the responsibility of private industry and other functions are the responsibility of the government. Dealing with climate change is the responsibility of government and it has numerous tools to do so: regulations, subsidies, taxes, etc. The problem is that it (more so but not totally the Republicans) has decided to do very little.
Dunno what all this stuff about markets fixing the problem is. It’s already too late in many ways. eg Miami. They bought into the market for CO2 and it just doomed them.
I guess what you mean is that markets will work for those that either have money and an education, and a lucky place on the map, which is fine for middle class Americans and Europeans.
If I asked which people are
I’d struggle with that myself, but I’d finger Bangladesh first I think. And, actually, my own spot on the map. Miami too.
:D…but anyway - like gods, licking their finger and rubbing it on the map - “hahaha, see I rub you out, ant people!”
Why blame the oil companies? They are just meeting demand.
Well, one should look at the past to see why this is not a good excuse.
Decades ago there was the issue of phosphates from detergents making algae grow in rivers and lakes killing fish and polluting.
Sure, the detergent companies were meeting demand for washing machines and other industrial uses. But no one was or is demanding that we should pollute our rivers or lakes in exchange.
The solution was to put regulations and the industry then did find ways to limit the use of the phosphates and still they delivered the product and most rivers and lakes nowadays are not polluted as before and with no poisonous algae.
(Currently the issue is popping again, this time from agriculture that is clearly overusing fertilizers with phosphates and nitrogen)
We will continue to demand products that come from oil and even fuel for vehicles, the thing what we are demanding is clear, we need to stop dumping the emissions into the atmosphere. Regulations and taxes then are needed to induce the industry to find ways to prevent or limit the emissions, just like it was done with many other issues.
Once the price of dumping CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is accounted for you bet the industry will find ways to meet the demand anyhow just like phosphates can be controlled and still we keep our clean clothes.
So the demand issue is not the problem, is the emissions; but to this item we have to add that the fossil fuel industry hired virtually the same FUD producers that the Tobacco companies used. Instead of facing restrictions these companies have resorted to fund doubt and that is also a factor in pointing out how silly these points are about the excuses to avoid blame or to point at demand alone.
fargle
:sigh:
Tell me something I did not know already, but this unfortunately also implies that “it is too late”, many experts I have checked report that while it is too late now to avoid some changes the point remains, the reason why we need to act is to prevent worse scenarios from taking place. And history shows that we can deal with issues that are caused by our technology and progress.
This was already pointed before:
fargle = I can’t find a delete button. is there one ?
Cool cartoon. (it doesn’t mention the possible covert action by non Syrians though)
so Syria
more toons
Besides self tread shitting, do you have something better than Google vomited cartoons* and conspiracy theories?
Almost nothing to do with the issue of Big Oil CEOs and responsibility about the current climate change.
Oh stop moaning, what are you talking about conspiracy theories ? Everyone knows Syria was pushed as much as it fell.
I’m not moaning. I find you only confusing and silly.
It is more a parody what you linked to, but is riffing though on the idea that Hollywood is manipulating what we are seeing coming from Syria, Iraq, etc.
The issue here is that you need to point specifically to what is your idea, not to think that a vomit (and really that is not a cartoonist) is a good point. And again: this has virtually nothing to do with the issue of the OP. Indeed, your latest posts are just a fargle.