4 ms·

Meteorologist Is Naming Heatwaves After Big Polluting Oil Companies

37 points by DemiGuru 3y ago

nh23423fefe 3y ago
formless activism to give the public "information"
- nocoiner 3y ago
  I think most people should really sit down and give some thought to why these oil companies are so big and profitable. Is it because the executives get off on extracting for the sake of extracting, damn the earth and the flora and the fauna? Maybe. (Probably not.) It probably has something more to do with the fact that individuals like driving their cars and taking planes to vacation destinations and appreciate the utility and versatility of plastic. I’m not trying to absolve oil companies or say that it is the individuals who are at fault, but the oil companies produce a tremendously useful product. And individual consumers buy great volumes of that product because, well, it’s tremendously useful and makes possible their western standard of living. So forgive me for thinking that this stunt is cutesy and fundamentally unserious. The oil companies wouldn’t be nearly as big as they are if they cast majority of humanity wasn’t very, very interested in what they’re selling. Plenty of blame to go around here.
  - vb6sp6 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Condition1952 3y ago
    Countries worldwide are addicted to fossil fuels because you need to burn fuel if you want to achieve almost anything. As Jean-Marc Jancovici puts it, the oil consumption of a country is its GDP. There’s a lot of energy in an oil drop. It’s not easy to move a country without burning fossil fuels. You commute to work by car or bus? You probably burn fossil fuels. Your food is grown using tractors which plant seeds which were delivered using trucks. You might replace those with energy but what about heavy machinery? We should just stop burning fossil fuels at all. The solution to the climate apocalypse depends on overcoming capitalism. Give food and shelter to all the unemployed due to the GDP collapse. We should have never reached such a level of addiction to a substance which destroys our environment. We have known it since the 19th century yet here we are, witnessing the apocalypse that the Cassandræ have forecasted. There are more sustainable economic systems like the one in North Korea, etc. but look which economic and political systems get destroyed when the revenue rate of the Fossil fuels corporations is at stake. We are bound for a termination shock or whatever it’s called because that’s in the interest of the big capital of the Fossil Fuels and its military branch
    - nocoiner 3y ago
      I absolutely refuse to accept that long term human existence is only viable at North Korean levels of economic development. I wouldn’t care to live in that world, and I won’t speak for my children, but I doubt that they would find that particularly appealing. We’re not going to stop burning hydrocarbons anytime soon - see above: they’re just too darn useful - but we’re making great progress in relegating them to their highest and best use. Oil fired power plants? Virtually extinct. Coal fired power plants? In terminal decline. Generating power from “waste” natural gas, instead of flaring it? Much progress there. Let’s keep building out renewables, work on the power storage problem, and (ideally) learn how to build nukes safely and efficiently again. Then with a moonshot or two like fusion or room temp superconductors, I think we have a better than even chance of coming out of this century with the climate crisis under control. We can all make more responsible choices, but I don’t currently see a need to sacrifice human welfare to get there.
      - Turskarama 3y ago
        The gulf between the western world and North Korea is _vast_. As an example, the USA has roughly double the fossil fuel consumption per capita as Germany and triple that of France, yet the standard of living in the USA is not significantly higher (and the median may in fact be lower, depending on your standards). Fossil fuel usage is higher in Russia than any western European country, yet the Russian standard of living is lower. There's a lot of low hanging fruit we can go after in the short term, we could potentially halve our fossil fuel usage in ten years and if we actually put the effort in do it while maintaining a high standard of living.
somedude895 3y ago
I care about as much as I care about stars being named after someone who paid a hundred bucks.
extraduder_ire 3y ago
I wonder if there's enough companies to avoid repetition and keep this fresh. Based on the linked page, there's already letters like I and J missing.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
As long as they name McDonald’s for the impact of beef.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
In a sense like "thanks exxon for making my life so comfortable"?
_8j50 3y ago
The oil companies are not polluting, society that depends on them for continued existence in its current form is. "The drug cartels ruined me" said the junkie. It's easy and lazy to blame the big and greedy suppliers but demand will always create a vaccum that must and will be filled. Assume fossil fuels are like drugs, why was the war on drugs not only unwinnable but made things worse? If that parallel is correct, consider the ramifications of this blunder being repeated on the climate.
- goku12 3y ago
  These companies are well known for not just supplying the hydrocarbons, but also burying research that showed the impact of CO2 emissions, scuttling research into the same, funding misleading news and propaganda groups that dismiss such impacts and influencing authorities to scuttle efforts to switch to alternative power sources. They aren't just passive players who share equal responsibility with us normies for heating up the planet. They are active players, without whose involvement, we may have taken solid actions much earlier when it really mattered. They shouldn't be compared to the illegal drug mafia. They should be compared to the big tobacco who did bad things while apparently staying within the law. Let's not understate or dilute their culpability in causing the major crisis that is plaguing the entire planet.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Why do they even do research into emissions? Who cares? Shouldn't an independent organization be doing the studies anyways? They take oil from the ground and sell it, whether their customers want vaseline or unleaded gas, do long as it is legally permitted and they pay all the taxes, what other obligation do they have? > ...funding misleading news and propaganda groups that dismiss such impacts and influencing authorities to scuttle efforts to switch to alternative power sources. But did they break the law? Is there corruption in the government or academia? Then start by rooting out that corruption. You are missing the point! This is the same mistake the war on drugs made! You want to bring big oil to their knees but so what? Are you saying people will buy shitty electric cars or nuke powerplants will be built because if that? If I was an oil and gas ceo, I would just quitely move my hq and business to friendlier countries and have non-culpable subsidiaries run US/western side of things but I am sure they have resources to eventually escape any significant damages beyond a few billion dollars. The fact that the political system is manipulated by powerful people and compnies is rightfully a root cause here. I have yet to see anyone sue congresspeople or crusade for lobbying/academia reform. Do you seriously blame publicly traded money making machines doing all they can to make more money? They're not supposed to care about the climate, your politicians are! Your academics who are supposed to present information to policy makers are. In the end you spend all your time protesting and crusadinf against anyone but the people ultimately responsible for it who can make effective change. Oil companies work for shareholders interests, elected politicians work for you. And keep in mind, big tobacco is alive and kicking. You can near bankrupt oil companies, they'll still be very profitable and the problem is still unsolved.

37 points by DemiGuru 3y ago

nh23423fefe 3y ago

formless activism to give the public "information"

nocoiner 3y ago
I think most people should really sit down and give some thought to why these oil companies are so big and profitable. Is it because the executives get off on extracting for the sake of extracting, damn the earth and the flora and the fauna? Maybe. (Probably not.) It probably has something more to do with the fact that individuals like driving their cars and taking planes to vacation destinations and appreciate the utility and versatility of plastic. I’m not trying to absolve oil companies or say that it is the individuals who are at fault, but the oil companies produce a tremendously useful product. And individual consumers buy great volumes of that product because, well, it’s tremendously useful and makes possible their western standard of living. So forgive me for thinking that this stunt is cutesy and fundamentally unserious. The oil companies wouldn’t be nearly as big as they are if they cast majority of humanity wasn’t very, very interested in what they’re selling. Plenty of blame to go around here.
- vb6sp6 3y ago
  [dead]
- Condition1952 3y ago
  Countries worldwide are addicted to fossil fuels because you need to burn fuel if you want to achieve almost anything. As Jean-Marc Jancovici puts it, the oil consumption of a country is its GDP. There’s a lot of energy in an oil drop. It’s not easy to move a country without burning fossil fuels. You commute to work by car or bus? You probably burn fossil fuels. Your food is grown using tractors which plant seeds which were delivered using trucks. You might replace those with energy but what about heavy machinery? We should just stop burning fossil fuels at all. The solution to the climate apocalypse depends on overcoming capitalism. Give food and shelter to all the unemployed due to the GDP collapse. We should have never reached such a level of addiction to a substance which destroys our environment. We have known it since the 19th century yet here we are, witnessing the apocalypse that the Cassandræ have forecasted. There are more sustainable economic systems like the one in North Korea, etc. but look which economic and political systems get destroyed when the revenue rate of the Fossil fuels corporations is at stake. We are bound for a termination shock or whatever it’s called because that’s in the interest of the big capital of the Fossil Fuels and its military branch
  - nocoiner 3y ago
    I absolutely refuse to accept that long term human existence is only viable at North Korean levels of economic development. I wouldn’t care to live in that world, and I won’t speak for my children, but I doubt that they would find that particularly appealing. We’re not going to stop burning hydrocarbons anytime soon - see above: they’re just too darn useful - but we’re making great progress in relegating them to their highest and best use. Oil fired power plants? Virtually extinct. Coal fired power plants? In terminal decline. Generating power from “waste” natural gas, instead of flaring it? Much progress there. Let’s keep building out renewables, work on the power storage problem, and (ideally) learn how to build nukes safely and efficiently again. Then with a moonshot or two like fusion or room temp superconductors, I think we have a better than even chance of coming out of this century with the climate crisis under control. We can all make more responsible choices, but I don’t currently see a need to sacrifice human welfare to get there.
    - Turskarama 3y ago
      The gulf between the western world and North Korea is _vast_. As an example, the USA has roughly double the fossil fuel consumption per capita as Germany and triple that of France, yet the standard of living in the USA is not significantly higher (and the median may in fact be lower, depending on your standards). Fossil fuel usage is higher in Russia than any western European country, yet the Russian standard of living is lower. There's a lot of low hanging fruit we can go after in the short term, we could potentially halve our fossil fuel usage in ten years and if we actually put the effort in do it while maintaining a high standard of living.

somedude895 3y ago

I care about as much as I care about stars being named after someone who paid a hundred bucks.

extraduder_ire 3y ago

I wonder if there's enough companies to avoid repetition and keep this fresh. Based on the linked page, there's already letters like I and J missing.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

As long as they name McDonald’s for the impact of beef.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago

In a sense like "thanks exxon for making my life so comfortable"?

_8j50 3y ago

The oil companies are not polluting, society that depends on them for continued existence in its current form is. "The drug cartels ruined me" said the junkie. It's easy and lazy to blame the big and greedy suppliers but demand will always create a vaccum that must and will be filled. Assume fossil fuels are like drugs, why was the war on drugs not only unwinnable but made things worse? If that parallel is correct, consider the ramifications of this blunder being repeated on the climate.

goku12 3y ago
These companies are well known for not just supplying the hydrocarbons, but also burying research that showed the impact of CO2 emissions, scuttling research into the same, funding misleading news and propaganda groups that dismiss such impacts and influencing authorities to scuttle efforts to switch to alternative power sources. They aren't just passive players who share equal responsibility with us normies for heating up the planet. They are active players, without whose involvement, we may have taken solid actions much earlier when it really mattered. They shouldn't be compared to the illegal drug mafia. They should be compared to the big tobacco who did bad things while apparently staying within the law. Let's not understate or dilute their culpability in causing the major crisis that is plaguing the entire planet.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Why do they even do research into emissions? Who cares? Shouldn't an independent organization be doing the studies anyways? They take oil from the ground and sell it, whether their customers want vaseline or unleaded gas, do long as it is legally permitted and they pay all the taxes, what other obligation do they have? > ...funding misleading news and propaganda groups that dismiss such impacts and influencing authorities to scuttle efforts to switch to alternative power sources. But did they break the law? Is there corruption in the government or academia? Then start by rooting out that corruption. You are missing the point! This is the same mistake the war on drugs made! You want to bring big oil to their knees but so what? Are you saying people will buy shitty electric cars or nuke powerplants will be built because if that? If I was an oil and gas ceo, I would just quitely move my hq and business to friendlier countries and have non-culpable subsidiaries run US/western side of things but I am sure they have resources to eventually escape any significant damages beyond a few billion dollars. The fact that the political system is manipulated by powerful people and compnies is rightfully a root cause here. I have yet to see anyone sue congresspeople or crusade for lobbying/academia reform. Do you seriously blame publicly traded money making machines doing all they can to make more money? They're not supposed to care about the climate, your politicians are! Your academics who are supposed to present information to policy makers are. In the end you spend all your time protesting and crusadinf against anyone but the people ultimately responsible for it who can make effective change. Oil companies work for shareholders interests, elected politicians work for you. And keep in mind, big tobacco is alive and kicking. You can near bankrupt oil companies, they'll still be very profitable and the problem is still unsolved.