4 ms·

Big fossil fuel producers' plans far exceed climate targets, U.N. says

37 points by perfunctory 5y ago

geewee 5y ago
I read a lot about pension funds still being able to invest in oil and gas because they take "active ownership" in trying to get those companies to do a green transition. I honestly think it's a smoke screen. The boat has sailed. Those companies have been spreading disinformation for decades, and we ought to just regulate them out of existence as quickly as we can. They will not change.
- anakaine 5y ago
  I formerly worked for a fortune 500 single commodity mining company whose head office was based in St Louis. I wasn't in a position of power, but was in one of trust, and employed as a professional scientist and engineer. The company quite frequently paid large sums to climate denialists with PhDs so they could produce and push out "our commodity is king" and "burning our commodity has a positive impact on the environment". It eventually became quite apparent that there was a professional disinformation racket going on between companies in the same commodity, with those involved tipping in money to "combined research programs" whose output was "research" that showed extracting and burning the commodity led to positive environmental outcomes. The company i worked for, along with several others had a huge presence in the US, but also had operations globally. The "research" was pushed through their global operations heavily and regularly.
tyronehed 5y ago
It just baffles me that there are humans alive on this planet who do not "get" the serious and immanent danger we face. And there is going to come a time, long after the damage has been done and we've passed the point of no return, that these coal executives will wake up to the gun they have personally pointed at the head of humanity. We are all dead folks. Too many runaway feedback loops have already been unleashed. (Methane) and now we have only to reap the whirlwind.
mimikatz 5y ago
Attacking the supply side seems odd. Shouldn't demand for fossil fuels be the target? The issue is capitalism doesn't believe politicians about the future and are planning based off their predicted reality.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  It's both. By continuing to tap into supplies, you keep the cost of carbon-producing fuels (and their carbon intensive extraction industries) low enough that they remain price competitive with renewables; a price which is further subject to implicit subsidies in the form of negative externalities. This then helps buoy the demand side and slows the transition to alternatives. One way to solve that is through carbon taxes so that the price of externalities is baked into the cost of the product. But the alternative is to simply cut back on extraction in the first place and leave the carbon in the ground. In either case the end result is higher prices at the pump which will push consumption toward renewables.
- zardo 5y ago
  They don't believe politicians about making real progress on the issue because they are pouring money into making sure it doesn't happen. It really doesn't make sense to treat them as though they are just economic entities, they are big political players as well. To give a specific example, when Washington state had a carbon tax on the ballot (a method to address the demand side), the oil industry spent 50 million on the campaign opposing the measure.

37 points by perfunctory 5y ago

I read a lot about pension funds still being able to invest in oil and gas because they take "active ownership" in trying to get those companies to do a green transition. I honestly think it's a smoke screen. The boat has sailed. Those companies have been spreading disinformation for decades, and we ought to just regulate them out of existence as quickly as we can. They will not change.

anakaine 5y ago
I formerly worked for a fortune 500 single commodity mining company whose head office was based in St Louis. I wasn't in a position of power, but was in one of trust, and employed as a professional scientist and engineer. The company quite frequently paid large sums to climate denialists with PhDs so they could produce and push out "our commodity is king" and "burning our commodity has a positive impact on the environment". It eventually became quite apparent that there was a professional disinformation racket going on between companies in the same commodity, with those involved tipping in money to "combined research programs" whose output was "research" that showed extracting and burning the commodity led to positive environmental outcomes. The company i worked for, along with several others had a huge presence in the US, but also had operations globally. The "research" was pushed through their global operations heavily and regularly.

tyronehed 5y ago

It just baffles me that there are humans alive on this planet who do not "get" the serious and immanent danger we face. And there is going to come a time, long after the damage has been done and we've passed the point of no return, that these coal executives will wake up to the gun they have personally pointed at the head of humanity. We are all dead folks. Too many runaway feedback loops have already been unleashed. (Methane) and now we have only to reap the whirlwind.

mimikatz 5y ago

Attacking the supply side seems odd. Shouldn't demand for fossil fuels be the target? The issue is capitalism doesn't believe politicians about the future and are planning based off their predicted reality.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
It's both. By continuing to tap into supplies, you keep the cost of carbon-producing fuels (and their carbon intensive extraction industries) low enough that they remain price competitive with renewables; a price which is further subject to implicit subsidies in the form of negative externalities. This then helps buoy the demand side and slows the transition to alternatives. One way to solve that is through carbon taxes so that the price of externalities is baked into the cost of the product. But the alternative is to simply cut back on extraction in the first place and leave the carbon in the ground. In either case the end result is higher prices at the pump which will push consumption toward renewables.
zardo 5y ago
They don't believe politicians about making real progress on the issue because they are pouring money into making sure it doesn't happen. It really doesn't make sense to treat them as though they are just economic entities, they are big political players as well. To give a specific example, when Washington state had a carbon tax on the ballot (a method to address the demand side), the oil industry spent 50 million on the campaign opposing the measure.