Shell's stance on wind power reveals a profound truth of capitalism

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/01/shell-wind-power-capitalism


Shell said it couldn't 'make the numbers work' for wind power. Photograph: Jasper Juinen/EPA


They couldn't "make the numbers work". There's something so blithe – and enormously telling - about the excuse offered by the oil company Shell to explain why they were not investing in wind power in Britain.

Presented with an accounting fact – that, on Shell's terms, wind power is deemed insufficiently profitable – observers are expected to automatically understand their logic, nod in agreement and move on.

With the Conservative party casting aside its green overcoat, Shell must feel even more comfortable than usual with a business decision diametrically at odds with the preservation of a habitable planet.

And they have, of course, been able to "make the numbers work" for heavily polluting tar sands. The high and fluctuating price of oil has gifted Shell massive, windfall profits from an asset which could be seen as a common global inheritance, one whose use carries an equally high cost. What makes the need for one set of numbers to "work" trump all other considerations, even the ultimate one of a climate fit for civilisation? How did we get to the odd state of affairs where a company citing extreme and narrow self-interest, can make investment decisions with profound negative decisions for the rest of society, while expecting and receiving impunity? With George Osborne as chancellor, they even get an understanding, indulgent pat on the shoulder to accompany the new tax breaks given to the oil sector in the budget.

[kristopher]

1. This is a good article, but it misses an important point

One of the important aspects that affects whether a "market" can exist and work properly to serve society is how difficult it is for companies to enter and exit the businesses involved. In today's world it is nearly inconceivable that a new entrant into the petroleum market could be less than the size of a nationstate. The corporations who dominate this field, such as Shell, are almost inconceivably large and are able to extract the profits they do because they get a very large slice of the entire pie.

Wind, even offshore wind, is not an endeavor that requires that scale of resources to enter the market and bring the product to market. Investment isn't small but neither is it megalithic. This enables the development of the market whether companies like Shell want to participate or not.

In fact, in the bigger picture the development of wind is counter to the interests of petroleum companies since part of the "plan" involving renewable energy development is the replacement of fossil fuels as "energy carriers" with a greatly expanded use of electricity as an energy carrier, especially for personal transportation.

It benefits petroleum companies to obstruct development of this system, not to participate and facilitate such development.

[xchrom]

2. It's part of that 'economics of scale'.

If the paychecks of the uber wealthy distort our conversation about 'income inequality' - the scale of multiple-national corporations distort this conversation.

The fact that you even mention that a company is as big as a nation/state is starling right off the bat.

[msongs]

3. fine, say adios to shell and get someobody who WILL make the numbers work nt

[phantom power]

4. perhaps we are trying to make the wrong numbers work

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=3566

[kristopher]

5. That is precisely what the article is about.

We need to develop the least destructive, most rapid, cost effective, sustainable energy sources precisely because of global warming. No one is forgetting that except those seeking to preserve the entrenched energy infrastructure.