It would be more informative if either side to this article had some facts with the news item.
On one side of the line InsideEVs refers to sponsorship of the article by a TESLA supplier.
It’s as much a promotion for Tesla as a lament we still need and use fossil fuels.
Such poorly presented content does little to promote a broader discussion, IMO. We are left the lesser for it. For those in Australia looking to alternate vehicle fuels the local market cannot even meet the current demand for new BEVs. Current forecasts for 2021 are new BEVs might pass 1% of all sales. Certainly the annual growth rate for sales is encouraging. Even the Federal Government is planning on 30% of sales being BEV by 2030. Supply dependent? Hence those users stuck with petrol vehicles and those with the dirtier and more environmentally damaging diesel fueled vehicles will still be depending on Shell and others to be in business.
Does Shell really have a plan and what is it?
The Guardian offered a more informative assessment, independent of any vested interest.
Rather than spay on a few emotive points The Guardian has considered the shareholder relationships and regulatory obligations.
While a big corporate such as Shell may be an easy target, isn’t the real future for alternate fuels going to be determined by Government action or inaction?
Governments control access to all mineral resources. Governments make decisions everyday that influence the decisions consumers and businesses make. The only difference between Governments globally may be how much attention they pay to either cause. A government can favour one form of energy over another.
