"anti-discrimination" laws basically make that illegal for any business of significant size. Doubly so for businesses who rely on any portion of their revenue from government spending.
Define "in groups". You seem keen to set boundary conditions where men are all perfectly sociable and level-headed, while women are all histrionic ninnies.
Yes, if you compare a quiet business meeting between amicable business partners and a girl's night out bender, the chaps seem like the calm, collected sort. As we all know, those are the only broad types of groups men and women collect in. There are no super-majority-male gangs, sports teams, sports team fans, stag parties, and the like where men act like total histrionic tits. No sirree, never happens. Lads are chads all day, every day, in all company, right?
Shell said the company is determined to deliver on its pledge to be a net-zero company by 2050.
What do they mean that they are going to become a net-zero company by 2050? 28 years to give up all of their oil? Or will they just use "green oil" approved via an ESG score?
Purchasing carbon credits which are a financial product not anything else.
I looked into how they were created a while back here in my country to see if I could make some money from them. First and foremost you need a financial services license to create them.
Think about that, they are a financial product first and foremost.
Dunno where the imp got renewable energy from. Usually when these companies say net zero, they mean they will invest in first or third party carbon capturing off-sets (tree planting, etc.) equal to their own personal carbon footprint.
Most of the offsets are borderline scams that don't nearly do what they say they do, but that's the semantic get out of jail free card for them and their ESG score.
Honestly that is something I could get behind, planting trees and protecting wild life areas.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
"Planting trees to offset GHG emissions" is a virtue-signaling scam for guillible people in the near-totality of cases.
The forest was going to grow anyway. Hastening the process by 1 to 5 decades does fuck-all in the long run.
That same forest is going to get cut down and the wood burned or decomposed in a matter of decades at best.
"Oh but we will protect that forest!" and thus simply moving the wood-cutting to a different place, a place that probably had higher biodiversity value than your semi-artificial tree plantation.
There are few places where the trees wouldn't grow back naturally but an artificial plantation would sustain itself. And then you have to protect that plantation from lugging and fires FOREVER. Good luck with that.
Though if you can see the scam comming from miles away, a forest fire in a non-self-replacing artificial forest is just amother opportunity to virtue-signal a "net zero carbon sink initiative" while memory-holing the previous "net zero emission" went up and smoke, + the GHG emissions of the whole tree-planting entreprise. They won't account for that.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
Knew someone who briefly interned at a carbon credit broker. Took less than a week before they were inducted into fudging the numbers and forging certificates.
Tree planting usually winds up being "we'll replace the natural forest with only commercially-desirable plants, and quietly war with any wildlife who might themselves want to use the trees, and then build all kinds of tourist shit in it."
What always slays me about anyone who babbles on about the "risks of climate change" and similar horseshit is that they never point the finger at the actual cause of the problem - which resides squarely in the lap of India, China, and other countries that have emissions controls that are so poor that their cities regularly end up looking like a London Pea Soup from the Victorian-era Industrial Revolution. But heavens forbid we actually put the CCP and other countries under the microscope. Nope, let's make Joe American try to feel guilty about it and shove responsibility on the general populace while the corporate fat-cats and globe-hopping billionaires zip around in their private jets to things like the WEF.
Those lessons are: don't hire emotionally unstable women.
Yea, don't hire leftist activists.
kek
It's their new buzzword in an attempt to obfuscate IQ scores disparity by race.
There are "better ways to mesure intelligence", they say.
Except whatever metric for intelligence you use, Sub-Saharian Africans and Australian Aboriginals score lowest.
When they babble about "emotional intelligence" they do NOT want you to look at anti-social and violent behaviors broken-down by race.
Are there any other kind?
"anti-discrimination" laws basically make that illegal for any business of significant size. Doubly so for businesses who rely on any portion of their revenue from government spending.
Plenty.
By the same retard logic, men are violent by nature, and should never be in charge.
Define "in groups". You seem keen to set boundary conditions where men are all perfectly sociable and level-headed, while women are all histrionic ninnies.
Yes, if you compare a quiet business meeting between amicable business partners and a girl's night out bender, the chaps seem like the calm, collected sort. As we all know, those are the only broad types of groups men and women collect in. There are no super-majority-male gangs, sports teams, sports team fans, stag parties, and the like where men act like total histrionic tits. No sirree, never happens. Lads are chads all day, every day, in all company, right?
What do they mean that they are going to become a net-zero company by 2050? 28 years to give up all of their oil? Or will they just use "green oil" approved via an ESG score?
Purchasing carbon credits which are a financial product not anything else.
I looked into how they were created a while back here in my country to see if I could make some money from them. First and foremost you need a financial services license to create them.
Think about that, they are a financial product first and foremost.
how is that a net-zero anything? If I use both an electric and a diesel car equally it means I'm net-zero?
Dunno where the imp got renewable energy from. Usually when these companies say net zero, they mean they will invest in first or third party carbon capturing off-sets (tree planting, etc.) equal to their own personal carbon footprint.
Most of the offsets are borderline scams that don't nearly do what they say they do, but that's the semantic get out of jail free card for them and their ESG score.
Honestly that is something I could get behind, planting trees and protecting wild life areas.
Although I'm like 90% sure they are just going to put money in some laundering scheme and then pat themselves on the back for some numbers they are going to pull out of their buts.
"Planting trees to offset GHG emissions" is a virtue-signaling scam for guillible people in the near-totality of cases.
The forest was going to grow anyway. Hastening the process by 1 to 5 decades does fuck-all in the long run.
That same forest is going to get cut down and the wood burned or decomposed in a matter of decades at best.
"Oh but we will protect that forest!" and thus simply moving the wood-cutting to a different place, a place that probably had higher biodiversity value than your semi-artificial tree plantation.
There are few places where the trees wouldn't grow back naturally but an artificial plantation would sustain itself. And then you have to protect that plantation from lugging and fires FOREVER. Good luck with that.
Though if you can see the scam comming from miles away, a forest fire in a non-self-replacing artificial forest is just amother opportunity to virtue-signal a "net zero carbon sink initiative" while memory-holing the previous "net zero emission" went up and smoke, + the GHG emissions of the whole tree-planting entreprise. They won't account for that.
Knew someone who briefly interned at a carbon credit broker. Took less than a week before they were inducted into fudging the numbers and forging certificates.
So. Yes.
Tree planting usually winds up being "we'll replace the natural forest with only commercially-desirable plants, and quietly war with any wildlife who might themselves want to use the trees, and then build all kinds of tourist shit in it."
What always slays me about anyone who babbles on about the "risks of climate change" and similar horseshit is that they never point the finger at the actual cause of the problem - which resides squarely in the lap of India, China, and other countries that have emissions controls that are so poor that their cities regularly end up looking like a London Pea Soup from the Victorian-era Industrial Revolution. But heavens forbid we actually put the CCP and other countries under the microscope. Nope, let's make Joe American try to feel guilty about it and shove responsibility on the general populace while the corporate fat-cats and globe-hopping billionaires zip around in their private jets to things like the WEF.
There are plenty of reasons to quit working for shell, climate hysteria is isn't one of them.
I love the weaponization of language here
Great headline.
Expect this person to be hired now for marketing/ESG reasons.
Hey, it could be... as a marketting strategy to launch her own Green Grift, or to get hired by a rich megacorporation looking to virtue-signal.