5 ms·

While I agree with the prediction, the tone they use seems somewhat too close to "well, if we're not going to make it anyway, how about we sell some more fossil

While I agree with the prediction, the tone they use seems somewhat too close to "well, if we're not going to make it anyway, how about we sell some more fossil fuels?"

bamboozled 3y ago
Exxon produces less than 3% of the world's daily crude demand and in May its shareholders overwhelmingly rejected calls for stronger measures to mitigate climate change. What else can be said, there are assholes that are legally allowed to actually pursue this and there is absolutely nothing in the way of the law that's going to stop it. Our current system of governance isn't equipped for this.
- Loughla 3y ago
  This is one of those problems that takes either collapse or dictator to fix. It's just too big and nebulous for society as it is to even acknowledge it across the board. The problem with both of those things is all the dead people. But we seem to think we can just keep skating by like we are in perpetuity.
  - version_five 3y ago
    > The problem with both of those things is all the dead people. Right. The consequences of communism or totalitarianism are well known and have recent precedents for how bad they will be. Climate change is an unknown, but throwing ourselves into the hands of a dictatorship (and that's what a lot of people are advocating, we're already seeing dictatorial rules in the name of climate) we know what will happen. The alternative is a technological solution. People need to stop using climate change to push a political agenda (which is literally all that's done) and get behind building nuclear and carbon capture.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > The consequences of communism or totalitarianism are well known and have recent precedents for how bad they will be. Climate change is an unknown, but throwing ourselves into the hands of a dictatorship (and that's what a lot of people are advocating, we're already seeing dictatorial rules in the name of climate) we know what will happen. It's a very popular culturally infused meme, but not really. There are levels of "authoritarianism"...for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Lee_Kuan_Yew https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Lee_... https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMj8mXByQ/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMj8mXByQ/ > People need to stop using climate change to push a political agenda (which is literally all that's done) and get behind building nuclear and carbon capture. People might benefit from wondering what needs to be done, rather than assuming that their intuition is correct. If we don't desire to know what is true, we may never reach it.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      The alternative is that biased researchers are extremely bad at math when they want to demonstrate something they already agree with, and it’s a big nothing burger. Because, they’re so bad at math that when I compiled the figures they give, I find that we’ll get a +8°C and above scenario. So, if announce it’s even remotely possible to not fall into that scenario, it must be that their figures are better than they say.
- chpatrick 3y ago
  Until people are willing to use less energy or consume fewer goods and services (that cost energy to produce), it's going to be difficult to achieve. You can blame the big evil corporations but they're polluting so we can buy our crap from them.
  - DarkNova6 3y ago
    The average US consumer causes 15t emissions of CO2 per year. The average EU consumer causes 7.5t emissions of CO2 per year. This is a structural difference, not one of consumers. They want you to blame the individual so the big actors can keep pocketing big money.
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      Why isn't it reasonable to blame the individual when the individual EU consumer manages to cause half the pollution of the individual US consumer?
      - truculent 3y ago
        Do you think the EU consumers are trying harder than the US ones?
        chpatrick 3y ago
        Yes, absolutely.
        staunton 3y ago
        Most people in either region are not making any significant effort. They just live their lives like everyone else around them. The difference is in what that looks like. Anyway, what's with this dichotomy "corporations should change behavior" vs. "consumers should change behavior"? Those two interact and influence each other. Obviously, both must change their behavior. This is a process that must be bootstrapped.
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  The past decades have shown the massive shift from public/national actors to the private actors. It is just as expected that now, the government cannot act strong enough to fight against a (global) crisis of the common people. Or perhaps it is the cause why we face so many threats to our planets all so seemingly suddenly. Most of all, consultancies have taken the job of people in ministries. This brain drain is another reason why the government seems so lobotomized to outsiders. But when one of your large clients is Exxon mobile and another team should consult a government about climate change... oh well

While I agree with the prediction, the tone they use seems somewhat too close to "well, if we're not going to make it anyway, how about we sell some more fossil fuels?"

bamboozled 3y ago

Exxon produces less than 3% of the world's daily crude demand and in May its shareholders overwhelmingly rejected calls for stronger measures to mitigate climate change. What else can be said, there are assholes that are legally allowed to actually pursue this and there is absolutely nothing in the way of the law that's going to stop it. Our current system of governance isn't equipped for this.

Loughla 3y ago
This is one of those problems that takes either collapse or dictator to fix. It's just too big and nebulous for society as it is to even acknowledge it across the board. The problem with both of those things is all the dead people. But we seem to think we can just keep skating by like we are in perpetuity.
- version_five 3y ago
  > The problem with both of those things is all the dead people. Right. The consequences of communism or totalitarianism are well known and have recent precedents for how bad they will be. Climate change is an unknown, but throwing ourselves into the hands of a dictatorship (and that's what a lot of people are advocating, we're already seeing dictatorial rules in the name of climate) we know what will happen. The alternative is a technological solution. People need to stop using climate change to push a political agenda (which is literally all that's done) and get behind building nuclear and carbon capture.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > The consequences of communism or totalitarianism are well known and have recent precedents for how bad they will be. Climate change is an unknown, but throwing ourselves into the hands of a dictatorship (and that's what a lot of people are advocating, we're already seeing dictatorial rules in the name of climate) we know what will happen. It's a very popular culturally infused meme, but not really. There are levels of "authoritarianism"...for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Lee_Kuan_Yew https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Lee_... https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMj8mXByQ/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMj8mXByQ/ > People need to stop using climate change to push a political agenda (which is literally all that's done) and get behind building nuclear and carbon capture. People might benefit from wondering what needs to be done, rather than assuming that their intuition is correct. If we don't desire to know what is true, we may never reach it.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    The alternative is that biased researchers are extremely bad at math when they want to demonstrate something they already agree with, and it’s a big nothing burger. Because, they’re so bad at math that when I compiled the figures they give, I find that we’ll get a +8°C and above scenario. So, if announce it’s even remotely possible to not fall into that scenario, it must be that their figures are better than they say.
chpatrick 3y ago
Until people are willing to use less energy or consume fewer goods and services (that cost energy to produce), it's going to be difficult to achieve. You can blame the big evil corporations but they're polluting so we can buy our crap from them.
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  The average US consumer causes 15t emissions of CO2 per year. The average EU consumer causes 7.5t emissions of CO2 per year. This is a structural difference, not one of consumers. They want you to blame the individual so the big actors can keep pocketing big money.
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    Why isn't it reasonable to blame the individual when the individual EU consumer manages to cause half the pollution of the individual US consumer?
    - truculent 3y ago
      Do you think the EU consumers are trying harder than the US ones?
      - chpatrick 3y ago
        Yes, absolutely.
        staunton 3y ago
        Most people in either region are not making any significant effort. They just live their lives like everyone else around them. The difference is in what that looks like. Anyway, what's with this dichotomy "corporations should change behavior" vs. "consumers should change behavior"? Those two interact and influence each other. Obviously, both must change their behavior. This is a process that must be bootstrapped.
DarkNova6 3y ago
The past decades have shown the massive shift from public/national actors to the private actors. It is just as expected that now, the government cannot act strong enough to fight against a (global) crisis of the common people. Or perhaps it is the cause why we face so many threats to our planets all so seemingly suddenly. Most of all, consultancies have taken the job of people in ministries. This brain drain is another reason why the government seems so lobotomized to outsiders. But when one of your large clients is Exxon mobile and another team should consult a government about climate change... oh well