7 ms·

Big Oil quietly walks back on climate pledges

53 points by ch_sm 3y ago

sfn42 3y ago
> Yet leading energy companies are intent on pushing the world in the opposite direction, expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no alternative. It is evidence that they are motivated not by record warming, but by record profits, experts say. No shit, Sherlock. You really think corporations are going to let a mountain of money just sit there if it's up for grabs? This is not the responsibility of you and me, buying an electric car and flying less won't save the world. It's not the responsibility of corporations, they just won't do it so expecting them to magically just do something that isn't ideal for making money won't get you anywhere. This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. In order for corporations to go green it needs to make them money. In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. The again it doesn't matter, it's way too late now.
- papandada 3y ago
  So, of course corporations will not be benevolent, but of course individuals should have been. But corporations, even governments, are just the amplification and personification of every selfish element in human nature, which tends to trump benevolence in any sort of "prisoner's dilemma" interaction. So all we actually need to do is eliminate selfishness from all humanity.
- tremon 3y ago
  It's not the responsibility of corporations This is where you're wrong. It's not the responsibility of regular businesses, but corporations were specifically created by governments to manage narrow societal interests, such as the railways or a national telephone network. And as an extension of government, corporations do have a reponsiblity towards the broader society. The fact that now every large business is allowed to name itself a corporation and is allowed to chase any business interest, whether it's related to their original charter or not, is a travesty. Corporations should only be allowed to operate within their charter, and government should be able to revoke that charter if the corporation acts contrary to society's interests. If a company is not prepared to operate according to a government charter, they should not be called a corporation (and not get the tax benefits), they're an enterprise.
  - makomk 3y ago
    The problem is that the social interests we expect Big Oil to pursue (or at least the ones the Guardian does) are contradictory. The Guardian wants Big Oil to throttle back production in order to reduce CO2 emissions, but at the same time it attacks them for the direct consequence of this which is that fossil fuels and everything produced with them increase in costs until the amount that people can afford to consume shrinks to match that decreased production, making people worse off in real terms. This is an inherent consequence of reducing CO2 emissions this way because it's not possible to burn fossil fuels that aren't there.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    How is “let's pool capital to make profit" not a valid charter? The problem is that the invisible hand, when it comes to stock markets, has a tendency to "maximise evil": wrt climate change this means that everybody who thinks that maybe we should better burn less carbon will be eager to sell if they still own something in that sector, and the highest bidders will be people eager to go on until even the last remaining unoxydized carbon atom in the crust is transferred into the atmosphere. Charters are for protecting investors from "that's not what I paid for!" surprises, if anything they'd make it harder for hydrocarbon extraction corporations to pivot away.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    If that's what a corporation is supposed to be sure, but it sure as hell isn't what corporations appear to actually be so I don't think I agree with your assertion that I'm wrong. I could agree that the definition for corporation is wrong or that the concept has been corrupted.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  > In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. Not necessarily, you need only appeal to their rational self-interests. People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options.
  - azinman2 3y ago
    > People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options Rich people do. Generally speaking, the cheapest option is what prevails.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > It's not the responsibility of corporations […] Yes it is; or rather, it is the responsibility of the human beings that make up corporations to not destroy the society with-in which they live. > This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. People make up corporation too.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    Did you even read my comment? You can say it's their responsibility all day long, they aren't doing anything and they won't start doing anything until it makes them more money than the alternatives. So either the government needs to make it profitable to go green, or it needs to find another way to make them go green. Or we can keep sitting here like a bunch of morons yelling at Taylor Swift for flying her private jet and yelling at BP for polluting and they will keep merrily ignoring us while swimming in money.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  I think your analysis is on point except for the last sentence. We have the system that we have. In said system, corporations behave as close to the "paperclip maximiser" AI as possible, replacing "paperclip" with "share value". Short of changing the system for a better one (which I would argue is not feasible, but that's another topic), all we can do is change the conditions under which share value will increase, such that a corporation gets greater share value for being less bad for the environment. That's where some problems arise, as too many people advocate for de facto individual responsibility of consumers, in the spirit of "voting with your wallet", as if it were even possible to convince a big enough proportion of consumers to have any noticeable effect on profits, let alone share value, and thus on the actions of the paperclip maximisers. That is as pointless as a solution as it would be to advocate for individual responsibility of investors to "vote with their portfolio" and invest more in corporations that do follow through with their climate pledges. Consumers and individual investors are not as soulless as corporations, but they still have their own economic interests to fulfil. The only way to get the paperclip maximisers to change their behaviour is to impose strong internalising costs such as carbon taxation and well calibrated punitive tariffs, and that has to be done at the level of Government(s), namely four: the USA, the EU, the PRC, and India. Make it so that a business that does not follow the rules simply cannot operate in these economies. Make it so that owning stocks in a business that does not follow the rules is taxed to a prohibitive amount. Make it so that a business that follows the rules but does not optimise for climate neutrality is blown out of the market because their prices are too damn high compared to the ones that do. Ban trade from any nation that does not impose similar draconian measures. Now we're talking. And it doesn't matter that it's way too late now. Let's do it anyway.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    Totally agree, even with the last sentence. Except I'm a bit more pessimistic and don't expect any of this to ever happen. At least not until it's even more too late than it already is.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  It's not anywhere close to too late. I'm so sick and tired of this nihilistic doomerism because it turns out the world doesn't work like a freaking Superhero cartoon 2-parter where the bad guys only win once at the end of part 1, and then the heroes come back from momentary defeat and save the day in part 2, looking over a prosperous sunrise as the credits roll. Back in the middle ages they started cathedrals knowing that the would take multiple generations to complete, but we're so decadent as a society that we can't do the same for an arguably existential crisis. Yes, our children may have some challenges due to climate change, and perhaps an overall lower quality of life, and they don't deserve that and it sucks. How about we try and make sure that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren have what they need to turn the corner? If the best we can do in our lifetimes is slow the decay and limit the damage, that's still WAY better than nothing.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    Your grandchildren (I won't have any) will probably struggle with things like water and food availability, possibly famine and I wouldn't be surprised if wars break out over these things. I also don't know if it will necessarily be grandchildren. It might very well be getting pretty bad by the time we're thinking about retirement. I'm hoping for the best and I hope I'm wrong but this is what it looks like to me, based on various reports and such that I see. The temperature graph is clearly exponential (at least for now) so the next 1.5 degrees are going to come much faster than the previous. I won't be surprised if we live to see 5, which is generally considered apocalyptic. And we haven't even started hitting the brakes, not even slightly. We're still producing more CO2 every single year than the previous. So yeah, I'm not optimistic. If you want to be that's fine and I'll happily support any proper action. But there's nothing I can do beyond live my best life while I can.
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
_8j50 3y ago
Getting sued for the climate is showing them climate pledges are a liability. My $0.02: The US needs several constitutional amendments before this and other issues are addressed. Just a minor amendment I had in mind: forbid congress from taking bribes/lobbying or from them or their family from owning commercial interests that can be manipulated with legislation. Criminalizing non-individual campaign contributions is another item. There are many more things like that which are not polarizing to the people. A constitutional convention of the states needs to be held because congress will not willingly pass such laws.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Just a minor amendment I had in mind: forbid congress from taking bribes/lobbying or from them or their family from owning commercial interests that can be manipulated with legislation. You realize that "lobbying" is just another word for "talking with your representative", right? Do you think that constituents shouldn't have the ability to influence their representatives?
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Lobbying as a profession is where things take a turn for the worse. Elected officials are paid to represent everyone, which requires hearing from many voices; not only their friends and those paid for access.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >not only their friends and those paid for access. How does the professionalization of lobbying imply either of these? The latter is clearly about campaign contributions, and the former is going to happen regardless of whether there are professional lobbyists or not (unless you think that representatives shouldn't have friends).
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Representatives have to put the collective voices of their constituents above their friends. Otherwise WTF are they paid to do? Friends being paid to tell representatives something is just veiled bribery. I'm not convinced the status quo is inevitable. When things become illegal and there is enforcement people generally adapt their behavior. Campaign financing of course needs an overhaul, even McCain saw this. Yet there are some entrenched interests to overcome.
throw0101a 3y ago
Reminder that oil companies (e.g., Exxon) knew about climate change back in the 1970s: * https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... * https://theintercept.com/2020/01/08/imperial-oil-climate-change-exxon/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/08/imperial-oil-climate-cha... * https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global-warming-1.6712899 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global...
- HonestOp001 3y ago
  Climate change or anthropogenically influenced climate change? And during the seventies is was global cooling. The whole thing is a farce, until the argument is pro nuclear and anti renewables, it is a joke. Glad the oil companies are properly allocating their resources. They will move to non-west companies and still make money. The whole coal burning from Germany proves the green movement is a joke.
fwungy 3y ago
State oil companies are much bigger the international oil companies we call Big Oil. If Exxon cuts back or stops there is plenty of surplus in Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran to make up the shortfall. There are trillions of dollars in state owned oil reserves that no one is walking away from.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Russia and Saudi Arabia have no incentives at all to slow production. Even if you think they buy into climate change, Russia would net benefit from warming and SA would be largely unaffected.
  - sebazzz 3y ago
    If you're referring to the climate, wasn't there a huge siberian forest fire a few years ago?
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      Canada, Siberia, and parts of N. Europe are burning pretty consisntaly.
K0balt 3y ago
There is a responsible way to extract and use fossil fuels as an interim necessity. The current model could not be farther from that path. The current crop of fossil fuel extraction companies need to be brought to heel by whatever means necessary. They have shown overt enmity to the well being and perhaps even the survival of the species. There is no measure at this point that should be off the table to deal with them, with extreme prejudice and any necessary force. This is no different from an arsonist roaming free in your neighbourhood under the color of law. We need to collectively disavow their legitimacy whether by nationalisation, punitive taxation, or whatever other means may become necessary. Additionally, the executives and even the employees of overtly hostile-to-humanity cartels such as the current incarnations of the fossil fuel industry need to be held socially responsible and overtly made pariahs within their communities. They are much more harmful than any criminal or terrorist organisation in their current methodology, and society needs to deal with them accordingly.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Others might say these companies are just giving people what they need and demand: cheap, easy to use energy. Instead of demonizing the current energy regime with petulant, ridiculous rhetoric, maybe that time is better used on building viable alternatives for customers. You can try to “Just Stop Oil” but currently without fossil fuels, the world stops.
  - K0balt 3y ago
    If strongly advocating for the well being of humanity in no uncertain terms is “petulant” and “ridiculous” then count me in. And if you were to actually read my post (which I assume you can?) you would find that I’m not advocating “stopping” oil, I’m advocating for responsible extraction with concomitant carbon capture or some other solution, of which there are many, aside from just making the survival of the species someone else’s problem while they stuff their pockets with money. Until that happens they are literally and knowingly stealing from the future of humankind for personal gain. The people also want murder for hire, heroin, and nuclear weapons. Should we also just say, “well, it’s what the people want, so I guess it’s just the wisdom of the market!” Should we allow these markets to operate uncontrolled as well?

53 points by ch_sm 3y ago

> Yet leading energy companies are intent on pushing the world in the opposite direction, expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no alternative. It is evidence that they are motivated not by record warming, but by record profits, experts say. No shit, Sherlock. You really think corporations are going to let a mountain of money just sit there if it's up for grabs? This is not the responsibility of you and me, buying an electric car and flying less won't save the world. It's not the responsibility of corporations, they just won't do it so expecting them to magically just do something that isn't ideal for making money won't get you anywhere. This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. In order for corporations to go green it needs to make them money. In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. The again it doesn't matter, it's way too late now.

papandada 3y ago
So, of course corporations will not be benevolent, but of course individuals should have been. But corporations, even governments, are just the amplification and personification of every selfish element in human nature, which tends to trump benevolence in any sort of "prisoner's dilemma" interaction. So all we actually need to do is eliminate selfishness from all humanity.
tremon 3y ago
It's not the responsibility of corporations This is where you're wrong. It's not the responsibility of regular businesses, but corporations were specifically created by governments to manage narrow societal interests, such as the railways or a national telephone network. And as an extension of government, corporations do have a reponsiblity towards the broader society. The fact that now every large business is allowed to name itself a corporation and is allowed to chase any business interest, whether it's related to their original charter or not, is a travesty. Corporations should only be allowed to operate within their charter, and government should be able to revoke that charter if the corporation acts contrary to society's interests. If a company is not prepared to operate according to a government charter, they should not be called a corporation (and not get the tax benefits), they're an enterprise.
- makomk 3y ago
  The problem is that the social interests we expect Big Oil to pursue (or at least the ones the Guardian does) are contradictory. The Guardian wants Big Oil to throttle back production in order to reduce CO2 emissions, but at the same time it attacks them for the direct consequence of this which is that fossil fuels and everything produced with them increase in costs until the amount that people can afford to consume shrinks to match that decreased production, making people worse off in real terms. This is an inherent consequence of reducing CO2 emissions this way because it's not possible to burn fossil fuels that aren't there.
- usrusr 3y ago
  How is “let's pool capital to make profit" not a valid charter? The problem is that the invisible hand, when it comes to stock markets, has a tendency to "maximise evil": wrt climate change this means that everybody who thinks that maybe we should better burn less carbon will be eager to sell if they still own something in that sector, and the highest bidders will be people eager to go on until even the last remaining unoxydized carbon atom in the crust is transferred into the atmosphere. Charters are for protecting investors from "that's not what I paid for!" surprises, if anything they'd make it harder for hydrocarbon extraction corporations to pivot away.
- sfn42 3y ago
  If that's what a corporation is supposed to be sure, but it sure as hell isn't what corporations appear to actually be so I don't think I agree with your assertion that I'm wrong. I could agree that the definition for corporation is wrong or that the concept has been corrupted.
bdcravens 3y ago
> In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. Not necessarily, you need only appeal to their rational self-interests. People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options.
- azinman2 3y ago
  > People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options Rich people do. Generally speaking, the cheapest option is what prevails.
throw0101a 3y ago
> It's not the responsibility of corporations […] Yes it is; or rather, it is the responsibility of the human beings that make up corporations to not destroy the society with-in which they live. > This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. People make up corporation too.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Did you even read my comment? You can say it's their responsibility all day long, they aren't doing anything and they won't start doing anything until it makes them more money than the alternatives. So either the government needs to make it profitable to go green, or it needs to find another way to make them go green. Or we can keep sitting here like a bunch of morons yelling at Taylor Swift for flying her private jet and yelling at BP for polluting and they will keep merrily ignoring us while swimming in money.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
I think your analysis is on point except for the last sentence. We have the system that we have. In said system, corporations behave as close to the "paperclip maximiser" AI as possible, replacing "paperclip" with "share value". Short of changing the system for a better one (which I would argue is not feasible, but that's another topic), all we can do is change the conditions under which share value will increase, such that a corporation gets greater share value for being less bad for the environment. That's where some problems arise, as too many people advocate for de facto individual responsibility of consumers, in the spirit of "voting with your wallet", as if it were even possible to convince a big enough proportion of consumers to have any noticeable effect on profits, let alone share value, and thus on the actions of the paperclip maximisers. That is as pointless as a solution as it would be to advocate for individual responsibility of investors to "vote with their portfolio" and invest more in corporations that do follow through with their climate pledges. Consumers and individual investors are not as soulless as corporations, but they still have their own economic interests to fulfil. The only way to get the paperclip maximisers to change their behaviour is to impose strong internalising costs such as carbon taxation and well calibrated punitive tariffs, and that has to be done at the level of Government(s), namely four: the USA, the EU, the PRC, and India. Make it so that a business that does not follow the rules simply cannot operate in these economies. Make it so that owning stocks in a business that does not follow the rules is taxed to a prohibitive amount. Make it so that a business that follows the rules but does not optimise for climate neutrality is blown out of the market because their prices are too damn high compared to the ones that do. Ban trade from any nation that does not impose similar draconian measures. Now we're talking. And it doesn't matter that it's way too late now. Let's do it anyway.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Totally agree, even with the last sentence. Except I'm a bit more pessimistic and don't expect any of this to ever happen. At least not until it's even more too late than it already is.
scottLobster 3y ago
It's not anywhere close to too late. I'm so sick and tired of this nihilistic doomerism because it turns out the world doesn't work like a freaking Superhero cartoon 2-parter where the bad guys only win once at the end of part 1, and then the heroes come back from momentary defeat and save the day in part 2, looking over a prosperous sunrise as the credits roll. Back in the middle ages they started cathedrals knowing that the would take multiple generations to complete, but we're so decadent as a society that we can't do the same for an arguably existential crisis. Yes, our children may have some challenges due to climate change, and perhaps an overall lower quality of life, and they don't deserve that and it sucks. How about we try and make sure that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren have what they need to turn the corner? If the best we can do in our lifetimes is slow the decay and limit the damage, that's still WAY better than nothing.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Your grandchildren (I won't have any) will probably struggle with things like water and food availability, possibly famine and I wouldn't be surprised if wars break out over these things. I also don't know if it will necessarily be grandchildren. It might very well be getting pretty bad by the time we're thinking about retirement. I'm hoping for the best and I hope I'm wrong but this is what it looks like to me, based on various reports and such that I see. The temperature graph is clearly exponential (at least for now) so the next 1.5 degrees are going to come much faster than the previous. I won't be surprised if we live to see 5, which is generally considered apocalyptic. And we haven't even started hitting the brakes, not even slightly. We're still producing more CO2 every single year than the previous. So yeah, I'm not optimistic. If you want to be that's fine and I'll happily support any proper action. But there's nothing I can do beyond live my best life while I can.

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]

_8j50 3y ago

Getting sued for the climate is showing them climate pledges are a liability. My $0.02: The US needs several constitutional amendments before this and other issues are addressed. Just a minor amendment I had in mind: forbid congress from taking bribes/lobbying or from them or their family from owning commercial interests that can be manipulated with legislation. Criminalizing non-individual campaign contributions is another item. There are many more things like that which are not polarizing to the people. A constitutional convention of the states needs to be held because congress will not willingly pass such laws.

gruez 3y ago
>Just a minor amendment I had in mind: forbid congress from taking bribes/lobbying or from them or their family from owning commercial interests that can be manipulated with legislation. You realize that "lobbying" is just another word for "talking with your representative", right? Do you think that constituents shouldn't have the ability to influence their representatives?
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Lobbying as a profession is where things take a turn for the worse. Elected officials are paid to represent everyone, which requires hearing from many voices; not only their friends and those paid for access.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >not only their friends and those paid for access. How does the professionalization of lobbying imply either of these? The latter is clearly about campaign contributions, and the former is going to happen regardless of whether there are professional lobbyists or not (unless you think that representatives shouldn't have friends).
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Representatives have to put the collective voices of their constituents above their friends. Otherwise WTF are they paid to do? Friends being paid to tell representatives something is just veiled bribery. I'm not convinced the status quo is inevitable. When things become illegal and there is enforcement people generally adapt their behavior. Campaign financing of course needs an overhaul, even McCain saw this. Yet there are some entrenched interests to overcome.

throw0101a 3y ago

Reminder that oil companies (e.g., Exxon) knew about climate change back in the 1970s: * https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... * https://theintercept.com/2020/01/08/imperial-oil-climate-change-exxon/ https://theintercept.com/2020/01/08/imperial-oil-climate-cha... * https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global-warming-1.6712899 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global...

HonestOp001 3y ago
Climate change or anthropogenically influenced climate change? And during the seventies is was global cooling. The whole thing is a farce, until the argument is pro nuclear and anti renewables, it is a joke. Glad the oil companies are properly allocating their resources. They will move to non-west companies and still make money. The whole coal burning from Germany proves the green movement is a joke.

fwungy 3y ago

State oil companies are much bigger the international oil companies we call Big Oil. If Exxon cuts back or stops there is plenty of surplus in Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran to make up the shortfall. There are trillions of dollars in state owned oil reserves that no one is walking away from.

bequanna 3y ago
Russia and Saudi Arabia have no incentives at all to slow production. Even if you think they buy into climate change, Russia would net benefit from warming and SA would be largely unaffected.
- sebazzz 3y ago
  If you're referring to the climate, wasn't there a huge siberian forest fire a few years ago?
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    Canada, Siberia, and parts of N. Europe are burning pretty consisntaly.

K0balt 3y ago

There is a responsible way to extract and use fossil fuels as an interim necessity. The current model could not be farther from that path. The current crop of fossil fuel extraction companies need to be brought to heel by whatever means necessary. They have shown overt enmity to the well being and perhaps even the survival of the species. There is no measure at this point that should be off the table to deal with them, with extreme prejudice and any necessary force. This is no different from an arsonist roaming free in your neighbourhood under the color of law. We need to collectively disavow their legitimacy whether by nationalisation, punitive taxation, or whatever other means may become necessary. Additionally, the executives and even the employees of overtly hostile-to-humanity cartels such as the current incarnations of the fossil fuel industry need to be held socially responsible and overtly made pariahs within their communities. They are much more harmful than any criminal or terrorist organisation in their current methodology, and society needs to deal with them accordingly.

bequanna 3y ago
Others might say these companies are just giving people what they need and demand: cheap, easy to use energy. Instead of demonizing the current energy regime with petulant, ridiculous rhetoric, maybe that time is better used on building viable alternatives for customers. You can try to “Just Stop Oil” but currently without fossil fuels, the world stops.
- K0balt 3y ago
  If strongly advocating for the well being of humanity in no uncertain terms is “petulant” and “ridiculous” then count me in. And if you were to actually read my post (which I assume you can?) you would find that I’m not advocating “stopping” oil, I’m advocating for responsible extraction with concomitant carbon capture or some other solution, of which there are many, aside from just making the survival of the species someone else’s problem while they stuff their pockets with money. Until that happens they are literally and knowingly stealing from the future of humankind for personal gain. The people also want murder for hire, heroin, and nuclear weapons. Should we also just say, “well, it’s what the people want, so I guess it’s just the wisdom of the market!” Should we allow these markets to operate uncontrolled as well?