4 ms·
Or if not, their work for 43 of the 100 largest global polluters [0] or illegal corruption in Africa? [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/mckin
by dlg 4y ago
Or if not, their work for 43 of the 100 largest global polluters [0] or illegal corruption in Africa? [1]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/mckinsey-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/mckinsey-climate...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/world/africa/mckinsey-south-africa-eskom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/world/africa/mckinsey-sou...
- missedthecue 4y agoI hate it when "studies" assign pollution to the company that pulled the oil from the ground. It's so dishonest, and perhaps even worse, it provides zero valuable insight. If I go joyride in a private jet, I'm the polluter, not Exxon Mobil for pulling the oil from the ground.
- BrianOnHN 4y agoI prefer addressing issues at the source. Mental gymnastics are for the guilty.
- kortilla 4y agoRight, the source here being the jet where the fuel is actually burned for energy.
- BrianOnHN 4y agoWrong. The jet is a matter of convenience. The fuel (source) being sufficiently inconvenient (expensive, illegal) would force alternative decisions.
- daniel-cussen 4y agoTakes two to tango in this case. The source is still where the fuel came from. You're talking about the sink it's ending up in.
- kwere 4y agodo you know oil has a lot of uses that are not pure transportation/electricity/heating related and necesssary for the modern civilization ?
- BrianOnHN 4y agoYeah, like the plastics that kill our environment on another vector. Stop apologizing for oil companies. Your brain power would be better spent solving how to stop literally pouring gas on the fire.
- neilv 4y agoWhy not both?