• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are. Just in tiny quantities compared with their investment in fossil fuel extraction:

    However, Global Witness, the activist group that has lodged the new complaint with the SEC, argues that just 1.5% of Shell’s capital expenditure has been used to develop genuine renewables, such as wind and solar, with much of the rest of the division’s resources devoted to gas, which is a fossil fuel.

    “What Shell has said about the energy transition is not reflected in what they are doing,” said Zorka Milin, senior adviser at Global Witness. “This business unit is fundamentally mislabeled, it has very little in the way of renewables and investors could be lulled into thinking Shell is doing far more on renewables than it is.

    • rdyoung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Damn, you really want to pick at nits and argue.

      Go back and read my original comment. I said they weren’t fighting it as much, not they were all in and had gone full hippy with it.

      I’m not surprised that there is a good chance they are over stating things but I didn’t make any claims about what or how much they had invested. I responded to your need to argue.

      On that note, I don’t have time for someone who has to keep looking for things to argue about and pick apart statements while taking them out of context or completely misunderstanding them assuming you actually read them all just so they can be right and have the last word.

      You have a nice day now. Maybe you can find someone else to argue with.