4 ms·
> Companies with shareholders, expecially long term institution investors, can be bent to care about more than simple profits - while still profiting albeit not
by kerkeslager 3y ago
> Companies with shareholders, expecially long term institution investors, can be bent to care about more than simple profits - while still profiting albeit not as much as if they chased nothing but maximal short term gains.
I said companies care about profits, not short-term or long-term profits, and the distinction between short- and long-term still doesn't bring in ethics.
> Pressure is on various traditional fossil fuel comanies to pivot into being long term energy providers rather than being solely relient on fossil fuel extraction.
And that pressure isn't working, because corporations care about profits not "pressure".[1] Note that the downtick in production is clearly explained by the pandemic; oil and gas have returned to almost pre-pandemic levels, and coal, arguably the worst of the three, has surpassed pre-pandemic levels.
> Countries are well able to strike deal with fossil fuel extractors to invest in parallel atmospheric carbon extraction (although that's largely a kiss on a sabre cut to date).
This is exactly the sort of pro-corporate nonsense that I'm talking about here. Fossil fuel extractors should be forced, not asked, to pay, not get paid for the damage they are causing. Why on earth would we pay our tax money to subsidize the companies who knew about climate change and tried to discredit it for decades, and continue to profit from pulling carbon out of the ground and distributing it into our atmosphere? You're literally proposing we reward these companies for the harm they cause, at the same time as openly admitting it has so far produced no results.
At some point you've got to admit you are more pro-corporate than you are pro-solving climate change if this is the sort of solution you think is reasonable. Mind you, I'm not questioning your intentions here, I'm saying intentions don't matter here.
> That said large scale consumers, entire countries, purchasing blocs, can put pressure on resource providers to change behaviour, and on secondary processing to take increased input from recycled materials.
Recycling plastic isn't real, it's a greenwashing campaign by petroleum companies.[2][3][4] This is not a solution, will never be a solution, and was never even intended to be a solution.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production
[2] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-...
[3] https://www.earthday.org/plastic-recycling-is-a-lie/ https://www.earthday.org/plastic-recycling-is-a-lie/
[4] https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/recycling-was-a-lie-a-big-lie-to-sell-more-plastic-industry-experts-say-1.5735618 https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/recyclin...
- defrost 3y ago> Recycling plastic isn't real, it's a greenwashing campaign by petroleum comp Who mentioned plastics .. that's correct, you did. > This is exactly the sort of pro-corporate nonsense that I'm talking about here. Fossil fuel extractors should be forced, not asked, to pay, not get paid for the damage they are causing. Have you read the report yet? > You're literally proposing we reward these companies for the harm they cause Did I? I have to ask, is english your first or third language? Rage on my friend, fight the power .. and work on your conversational skills, launching in with heavy handled accusations based on your own assumptions won't always get the results you might desire.
- kerkeslager 3y ago> Who mentioned plastics .. that's correct, you did. You said, "Pressure is on various traditional fossil fuel comanies [...] Countries are well able to strike deal with fossil fuel extractors [...] That said large scale consumers, entire countries, purchasing blocs, can put pressure on resource providers to change behaviour, and on secondary processing to take increased input from recycled materials." Quiz: which recycled material comes from fossil fuels? > Have you read the report yet? Which report? > > You're literally proposing we reward these companies for the harm they cause > Did I? Yes, you did. You said: "Countries are well able to strike deal with fossil fuel extractors to invest in parallel atmospheric carbon extraction". That's just rewarding fossil fuel extractors for their bad behavior with government contracts.
- defrost 3y ago> Quiz: which recycled material comes from fossil fuels? Steel for one, right now I'm partnered with a friend decommisioning an offshore platform - lots of materials there. > Which report? Keep moving up comment until you reach my first comment - I assumed (bad mve on my part) that you'd arrived here by some kind of context rather than randomly landing on something you wanted to launch your particular thinkys from. The report in question addresses sustainable use of global resources at scale, it's not merely focused on greenwashing plastic. > That's just rewarding fossil fuel extractors for their bad behavior with government contracts. Err, no. It's changing the deals that have been done in the past to include teardowns and restorative work (carbon capture). You'll notice I was disparaging about carbon capture for the good reason that to date nobody has a project proposed on the scale of recovery to match the downsides. If they can't actually meet a "zero emission" or better balance then such deals should preclude extraction. You're coming at this with a whole set of your baggage.