all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 3 months ago

Oh no, how will they do their greenwashing now? 😱

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Bye Felicia

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    There it is

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/worldnews@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Investing in the future costs money and lowers our quarterly profits, just sell it off so the investors get bigger numbers immediately.

    And remember: markets are efficient 🤡

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    One day in the future they will really tear the wires from the wall to increase quarterly profit and The Economist will praise this move

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We don't need shell to build solar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    You have two wars directly affecting major hydrocarbon exporting countries and the strategic reserves of several countries are at a generational low. Shell is likely betting that oil is going to spike, which probably isn't bad for electrification as a concept.

    We've also been seeing in adjacent industries that the skills to succeed in hydrocarbon related energy don't exactly transfer well to non-hydrocarbon related energy. Shell may be bad at building out solar because solar works on different scales than they are used to.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I would have hoped this article would tell me why their CEO has shifted spending back towards oil and gas and away from low-carbon projects.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment