Anytime a corporation makes a commitment that is not binding, you should consider that commitment entirely meaningless.
It should not get any press. You should not talk about it say anything about it or think about it.
At least not until they renege at which point you should shame them for making it in the first place.
If any of these companies were at all serious about their goals they would have some kind of a financial commitment to that goal. Some kind of a serious penalty for not achieving it. They would not have an escape hatch on it of any sort other than full on bankruptcy.
Shell was always completely unserious about these climate pledges. It was just advertising. And advertising for a fossil fuel company is a tool for selling more fossil fuels and nothing else, meaning these pledges weren't just unserious but they were actual lies and deceit.
I'm surprised someone like Shell would even have such goals. I guess the idea was that it would pay in PR or something, otherwise I don't see why they'd bother.
Is regular old greenwashing. A time-honored advertising strategy.
Never forget that the term "carbon footprint" was invented by a BP ad campaign that had an explicit goal of reframing emissions to an issue of individual responsibility instead of something directly caused by oil companies. Because BP and all the oil companies know that so long as the issue is considered one of individual responsibility we will continue to use fossil fuels until the surface of this planet is inhospitable to life, just letting them get richer since they don't give a damn about down the road consequences.
They all have them, it is just usefull to say that they are working really hard on reducing emission. It is just that some minor problems make that really hard. Namely money:
Only if the cheap infrastructure is good. It's almost always terrible except in the Netherlands. I don't think Copenhagen has good cycling infrastructure btw and I did cycle there. Even in the Netherlands there's still loads of issues.
Bicycling should be pushed (and frankly, at this point forced) by the government. Loads of car infrastructure should be tore up and replace with cycling infrastructure. Cities should change those dead suburbs into places for people by making small modifications. Allow multi purpose buildings, allow smaller shops and restaurants there, tear up the ultra wide roads and replace them with small single direction roads for cars and add superb walking and cycling infrastructure with more than enought space left for trees that give nice shade...
It is much easier to set distant goals, lobby to ensure you're not required to keep those goals, say "see, we don't need rules, we're voluntarily doing the right thing!", and then shift the goalposts when you get closer to the deadline. Step 3 isn't profit, profit is what you get from every step of fucking over every living thing on the planet. Except Burmese pythons and mosquitoes I guess.
Very true, but my point was they're on the short list of creatures whose lives are not made worse by the people running, investing in, or profiting from Shell.
