Photo: Shell
Imagine you're at the helm of a big oil company and you read all these reports on different cities or countries banning the sale of all cars with internal combustion engines at one point or another.
You wouldn't really care, would you? You would take a peek at your bank account, realize there's enough to give a good life to at least four generations to come without anyone having to work, and you would think about how to make the most of the time you have left.
But these people didn't get where they are now without being greedy, so that's not an option. Fossil fuel has become the number one enemy of our planet's future, and they are the companies providing the ammunition. Suddenly, they are on the wrong side of the barricade, and they don't like it.
The first one to fire back - at least to our knowledge - at these developments is Shell. The Anglo-Dutch oil giant is worried such news might be hindering the development of more efficient gas and diesel engines, thus turning the issue of their emissions into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Through the voice of Guy Outen, the company's head of strategy, Shell said that it backs efforts to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution, but he doesn't believe governments should be the ones choosing the solution.
Instead, in an interview with the British Financial Times (subscription required), he argued that a better approach would be taxing carbon emissions. “Put a price on carbon," Outen said, "stand back and watch the rush of technology to find the cheapest solution."
And don't for a moment think Outen might be biased. On the contrary: he actually says that a continuous push for lower carbon emissions would cut the demand for oil three times as much as forcing people to buy battery-powered cars. How? He didn't care to elaborate.
But we think he's wrong anyway. Carmakers are already having trouble meeting the ever stricter carbon emissions, even though they aren't nearly as tough as they should be to make a real difference. Plus, at the end of the day, a more efficient gasoline engine is still a gasoline engine - it's going to emit more carbon dioxide - among other things - than an EV no matter how you look at it, so his argument is invalid.
Faced with very harsh restrictions for their fossil fuel-powered cars and with the Dieselgate scandal still fresh in their memory, manufacturers would probably do the only thing possible and turn to electric vehicles on their own will. So, in the end, what Outen suggests would just be another way toward the same goal.
For now, the biggest names to announce a ban on gasoline and diesel cars are France and the United Kingdom, while Norway seems on its way to do it without enforcing any particular laws. However, China is also said to be mulling the possibility. That's the world's largest car market, so any such change would severely disrupt the industry, forcing the players to adapt or perish.
And that includes big oil companies as well. The need for their product will not go away that quickly, but the demand could dwindle. Oil could lose its super-commodity status that dictates the prices of almost anything else in the world, being replaced by electricity. A lot of companies are already playing at both ends, but that doesn't mean they're ready to let go of the still fatter one without a fight.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this unfolds over the coming decades. For now, all we have is promises for an EV revolution from a few countries and most traditional manufacturers, plus countless startups. On the other hand, we have the all-mighty oil companies and the new U.S. administration's refusal to acknowledge the need for change, which could play an important role as well. That makes the next U.S. presidential elections in 2020 all the more important.
But these people didn't get where they are now without being greedy, so that's not an option. Fossil fuel has become the number one enemy of our planet's future, and they are the companies providing the ammunition. Suddenly, they are on the wrong side of the barricade, and they don't like it.
The first one to fire back - at least to our knowledge - at these developments is Shell. The Anglo-Dutch oil giant is worried such news might be hindering the development of more efficient gas and diesel engines, thus turning the issue of their emissions into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Through the voice of Guy Outen, the company's head of strategy, Shell said that it backs efforts to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution, but he doesn't believe governments should be the ones choosing the solution.
Instead, in an interview with the British Financial Times (subscription required), he argued that a better approach would be taxing carbon emissions. “Put a price on carbon," Outen said, "stand back and watch the rush of technology to find the cheapest solution."
And don't for a moment think Outen might be biased. On the contrary: he actually says that a continuous push for lower carbon emissions would cut the demand for oil three times as much as forcing people to buy battery-powered cars. How? He didn't care to elaborate.
But we think he's wrong anyway. Carmakers are already having trouble meeting the ever stricter carbon emissions, even though they aren't nearly as tough as they should be to make a real difference. Plus, at the end of the day, a more efficient gasoline engine is still a gasoline engine - it's going to emit more carbon dioxide - among other things - than an EV no matter how you look at it, so his argument is invalid.
Faced with very harsh restrictions for their fossil fuel-powered cars and with the Dieselgate scandal still fresh in their memory, manufacturers would probably do the only thing possible and turn to electric vehicles on their own will. So, in the end, what Outen suggests would just be another way toward the same goal.
For now, the biggest names to announce a ban on gasoline and diesel cars are France and the United Kingdom, while Norway seems on its way to do it without enforcing any particular laws. However, China is also said to be mulling the possibility. That's the world's largest car market, so any such change would severely disrupt the industry, forcing the players to adapt or perish.
And that includes big oil companies as well. The need for their product will not go away that quickly, but the demand could dwindle. Oil could lose its super-commodity status that dictates the prices of almost anything else in the world, being replaced by electricity. A lot of companies are already playing at both ends, but that doesn't mean they're ready to let go of the still fatter one without a fight.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this unfolds over the coming decades. For now, all we have is promises for an EV revolution from a few countries and most traditional manufacturers, plus countless startups. On the other hand, we have the all-mighty oil companies and the new U.S. administration's refusal to acknowledge the need for change, which could play an important role as well. That makes the next U.S. presidential elections in 2020 all the more important.
Google News