Bull Elephant Candle $33 Target?, page-70

Climate science believer here, long oil/LNG. The below article sums up my thoughts on the matter.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/03/big-oil-shell-exxon-chevron-emissions-climate-change-production-supply-demand-cuts-risks/?utm_source=Center+on+Global+Energy+Policy+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=1ec0fc17ef-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_18_12_40_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0773077aac-1ec0fc17ef-102433417

Emphasis on these 3 points:
"Consider that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require building the equivalent of the world’s largest solar park every single day for the next three decades. Or that half of the emission reductions between now and 2050 will have to come from technologies not yet commercially available, in particular to decarbonize such sectors as steel, cement, and chemicals. Or that global energy use in 2050 will have to be lower than it is today—even as GDP and the global population grow and energy use rises in parts of the world that use relatively little energy per person today, such as Southeast Asia and Africa."

"The number of cars in the world is projected to rise from roughly 1 billion today to 2 billion in 2050—so even if the share of electric car sales rose to 50 percent, the number of cars running on oil would remain roughly flat."

"The key is this: Unless both supply and demand change in tandem, merely curbing the oil majors’ output will either shift production to less accountable producers or have potentially severe consequences on economic and national security interests while doing little to combat the climate crisis."

The sobering reality:
"Forcing oil majors to curb investment only leads to emissions reductions if global oil demand declines, too. Otherwise, underinvestment creates economic, political, and geopolitical risks that could actually undermine the rapid decarbonization needed to combat the climate crisis."