3 ms·
> A fossil fuels company has deep incentive to minimize the harm of fossil fuels You... you're aware that the actual, historically realized, attitude of fossil
by SiempreViernes 3y ago
> A fossil fuels company has deep incentive to minimize the harm of fossil fuels
You... you're aware that the actual, historically realized, attitude of fossil fuel companies has been to deny any harm exists, right? Deny it to the tune of 200 million dollars as recently of 2019, and for good reason! That spending bought them lots of political inaction since the science was settled in like 1990, you know: the days where keeping staying below 1.0 degrees warming was a realistic goal.
- deciplex 3y agowhat is historical fact compared to what my imagination tells me should have happened?
- jncfhnb 3y agoI am aware of that, yes. This doesn’t change the calculus of today. CO2 conversion tech is a path to selling more fossil fuels.
- retrocryptid 3y agoWhy? Why not just sell more fossil fuels?
- deciplex 3y agoWhy spend on tech that might not be a sure thing when bribery has been working for decades?
- jncfhnb 3y agoBecause that’s a gross oversimplification of things that sounds punchy but isn’t particularly realistic.
- deciplex 3y agoOkay explain for us the realistic mechanism by which CO2 conversion technology allows oil companies to not only sell more fossil fuels than they do now, but most importantly does so with a greater ROI than the open bribery that our institutions not only allow for but actually require to function. Because it sounds to me, speaking of "punchy but not particularly realistic" that you have some idea in your head of how our politics and economics work, that is contrary to even a cursory examination of material reality, and is laughably naive. And I earnestly want to hear it, because I could use a laugh today.
- jncfhnb 3y ago> Because it sounds to me, speaking of "punchy but not particularly realistic" that you have some idea in your head of how our politics and economics work, that is contrary to even a cursory examination of material reality, and is laughably naive. And I earnestly want to hear it, because I could use a laugh today. Could you please not. You are presenting a false dichotomy. It’s not “bribe vs. use this tech”. It’s also not really about bribing at all. Fossil fuels are important. That sucks, but we do need them in the short term. If this tech works, and the government is willing to pay for it to some extent, it’s probably a lot cheaper to build caseload gas plants and peak daytime load renewables than it is to try and build excessive green power and batteries to tide the night over. Or just, you know, worst case run this profitable service independently of externalities
- retrocryptid 3y agoOr you could just sell more fossil fuels.