Shell Strategist Believes Governments Shouldn't Be In The Business Of Banning Fossil Fuel Vehicles

We need to let free market economics dictate the future of fossil fuel vehicles, not government bureaucrats. If EVs provide better gas mileage, are more reliable, and come at a good price point, consumers will begin to demand these over fossil fuel vehicles, and the market will address things naturally. From 2009 to 2016 we saw the impact of over-regulation in the US, and now that many regulations have been scaled back, we are seeing businesses grow and thrive, and joblessness claims at their lowest point since 1970.

re "...We need to let free market economics dictate the future of fossil fuel vehicles, not government bureaucrats..."

Decades ago, when Germany drew a link between tobacco smoking and human health risks, the US tobacco industry cranked out false studies claiming there was no link (and positioned them as independent medical research). The "free market" principle was violated when the US government stepped in, and challenged the tobacco industry's (100% false) claims of "clean hands," and eventually proved what we understand today to be true: Smoking in a huge health risk, and it is best avoided.

So, it could be said that the US government interfered with free enterprise, and they engaged in "social engineering" (to some degree). They interfered with the tobacco industry's right to make a profit, etc., etc. This was the position of the tobacco industry and the people who supported it, regardless of the profoundly negative impact tobacco had (and has) on tobacco users.


IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not suggest that governments should ban ECE any time soon. I am highlighting how the blind belief in the goodness of "free enterprise" blinds its believers to harmful realities.

When you elect fascist socialists, you get social engineering by law.

@bnlihome and Mdarringer... Perfectly stated!!

You can get rid of the rest of that sheit, but don't touch my V-Power. ;-)

What a surprising viewpoint for an oil exec to take.

Doesn't mean he's wrong though... :)

I hold the view that the principle of a cleaner environment, and thereby healthier humans and other life on Earth, is a great idea. I place the health and wellbeing of Americans (and other people) ahead of corporate profit[1].

I also recognize that "we" -- as a civilization and an economy -- have a huge dependency on oil and other fossil fuels, so it's not practical simply to outlaw a *symptom* of that dependency: ICE cars. It makes a lot more sense to have an effective, cohesive, and complete transition plan that achieves our move to significantly reduce our dependency on, and our use of fossil fuels.

____
[1] This does NOT mean profit is bad. It DOES mean that making a profit from harming people should be scrutinized (e.g., as the tobacco industry was). This is a BIG distinction, which will surely be missed by "profit, regardless of the impact" extremists.

Steve, couldn't agree more :)

If big oil was smarter they would see themselves as companies that "power" transportation. Each should be investing into battery manufacturing and other sources of power (hydrogen). Tea leaves are pretty clear on where the market is going. The move away from gasoline won't change the need for oil in mfg and car maintenance, but it may impact the volume sold world wide over the next 20-50 years.

All oil companies have seen the writing on the wall for decades. They have been investing in all forms of energy, both clean and dirty, in preparation of the demise of fossil fuels.

The predictions of the end of ICE vehicle production is WAY off - and by then it is possible that someone will come up with a way to make ICE powered cars far less polluting than they are today - and with an infrastructure already in place - and with most people still having ICE cars - they could survive - maybe as Hybrids - but still with an ICE engine.

Maybe 30 -40 years from now (ANd they predicted in the 1970's that we would already be out of oil by now) - there will be enough electric production to meet the demand of 30% of the vehicle on the road - we do not have that today. In some summers - the grids are already at their maximum. Now - add in the added need for EVS - and the infrastructure is not as easy as charging stations. THEy will still need the natural gas to produce the electricity as well. WE do not have a viable alternative for URBAN areas yet.

Shell has a vested interest in making money and no illusions of a soul or morals.

Also, There is no such thing as a "free market". Every time you pull into a gas station, you depend on regulations and government agencies to ensure you that the gas you buy not only does not destroy your engine, but also meets the rules and regulations necessary to be sold. You also depend on a government that allows you recourse if that gas vendor violates the law if you have been damaged by his/her representation.