2 ms·
> oil Shell and others are calling it "deep water energy". This is good PR, nothing more. They aren't going to base their revenue on charging cars; and they ge
by botanical 3y ago
> oil
Shell and others are calling it "deep water energy". This is good PR, nothing more. They aren't going to base their revenue on charging cars; and they get carbon credits to look good.
If you search "BP global warming", the first 7 of 9 results are linked to BP.com about how they're taking action on climate change.
In February of this year, "BP dials back climate pledge amid soaring oil profits. The British oil giant wants to decrease its carbon emissions by between 20 and 30 percent by 2030. It previously aimed for a 35 to 40%." :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/02/07/bp-climate-emissions-oil-profits/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/02/07/bp-climat...
- charles_f 3y ago> The British oil giant wants to decrease its carbon emissions by between 20 and 30 percent by 2030. It previously aimed for a 35 to 40%. The only way they can significantly decrease "their" carbon emissions is by selling less of their product, which would be by lowering their lobbying and switching to another source of revenue. I could say this is good news, not that I care about bp or tesla chargers, but anything that allows them to pivot to another revenue stream is less petrol they'll sell to be burnt. But truth be told there is no reason why it would be subtractive when it can be additive. Any pledge they make is meaningless. All will be burnt until there's none, because it doesn't cost remotely as much to produce than it brings to sell.