790
Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
790 points (98.6% liked)
World News
39183 readers
2236 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I honestly do not think that it is oil companies that should fight climate change. They should provide oil derived product as required by economy. It is OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY to act. Through individual choices, through government incentives, through carbon taxes and so on. To expect that all oil companies together will act against their profits and interests is naive.
Did an oil company write this?
I hope so. You'd have to be crazy to think like that otherwise.
He is trying to say make oil unprofitable or coerce change through the "proper channels." They control the proper channels through lobbying. So that is not really going to change anything.
No, they are not, at least not completely. Oil industry is just a fraction of the whole economy. And anyway, trying to do it "through proper channels" is infinitely more productive than expect oil companies to become green out of good of their heart or something.
The oil industry is 100% of the economy. Double oil prices and see what happens to the price of everything else.
Double price of electricity… double price of labor… double price of real estate and office space costs… there are a lot of ways one can ruin economy, so what?
Yes, attack the messenger, not the message. Leads to good and intellectual discussions.
Yes, because oil companies are totally NOT spending millions of dollars fighting every possible movement, organization or act to hold them responsible for the damage they're causing. Clearly, we just need to hold hands and everything will be solved!
Also, as an individual, you don't choose whether the electricity you get comes from a gas power plant, hydro dam, coal or something else. You don't get to choose whether the thing you're eating was transported from a diesel truck or an electric vehicle. There are many, many steps before you get a final product that needed fossil energy
Actually, you can change your provider and chose more green provider. Also, if you own the house, you can put solar on your roof.
Maybe you can, but much of the world operates under effective utility monopolies. On your other point, how is that helpful when the average cost to do so is in the dozens of thousands of dollars, while the average American holds less than $1000 in savings?
When I was installing it on my house it costed me exactly 0$. Essentially the solar panel company rented my roof space installed panels there and sold me electricity. The cost of electricity was even cheaper for me, since there were no delivery charges.
Alternatively - take credit. While I have not done these calculations, it is plausible that you get even or even benefit from installing solar panels while taking credit (this would work better few years ago, when the rates were low)
I cannot change my energy provider. I cannot install solar either, because I live in an apartment. I can maybe put some cells outside my windows, but they'd only be effective for less than half the sunlight hours.
Even if solar was installed in the building I currently live in, we'd have to pay the energy provider for any excess electricity we generate into the grid. Yeah, it's that fucked up where I live.
The world isn't a copy of where you live.
Then the only thing which is left for you is voting and convincing other people to vote for representatives who can change these laws.
I do my part, but I don't have the money to fight rich assholes and their seemingly endless supply of money financing bullshit arguments and political lobbying.
No I can't. I have one option. One company. That's it. And solar would cost me about $15,000. And that's not counting a battery. Maybe you're rich, but I'm not.
15K is not rich for US. It is 1/3 of a new car price ($46,290 in 2022). It might be not very doable for you, personally, but I bet that majority of households can afford this, especially since they will get free electricity after that, and if they truly worry about climate change. If not, then why do they require for oil companies to make financial sacrifices, but not for themselves (even if it is a sacrifice at all)?
People can't even afford food right now because of inflation. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford solar panels either.
Some people, not all.
Yes, 60%. I just said that.
i.e. the majority.
That statistics might be true, but at the same time 90% of US households have at least one car, and about 60% have 2. Installing solar panels is roughly cash neutral or even positive depending on location. You can take a bank loan and install the panels and the payment back to bank will be comparable to savings you get from not paying for electricity.
Oh sure, that's what Americans need. Even more debt. Great idea.
What's the difference of paying debt vs paying for electricity if you pay the same amount?
Can you prove that it's the same amount?
Many people do that because it is economically beneficial for them. Do you think that most solar panels on the house roofs are done because people want to be green?
That is not proof that it's the same amount. Is the debt plus interest the same amount as you save in electricity? Can you demonstrate this claim?
In most cases, installing residential solar panels is worth it.
That says nothing about going into debt. It certainly doesn't say that's a good idea.
If it makes sense installing solar panels when you have these 15K, then generally it makes sense to borrow the money as well (provided reasonable rates). The reason is that otherwise you would rather invest 15k into something (stock market, CD, whatever) than building the solar panel. Since the return rates from investment roughly follow borrowing rates, the situation is the same in both cases (borrowing vs already having money).
Of course, it does not mean that it is beneficial for everyone. People live in different states, with different laws, have different credit scores, so in each individual case it must be calculated. And in many cases it will work, and in others it will not.
But my main point is different. It is not like you are throwing away 15K. You are investing them, and will get return on investments. So, even if the returns are less than expected, you loose only the difference between 15K and the returns. So, if one really worries about climate change, they can act, and it does not cost 15K at the end to them. And in many cases it can be even financially beneficial.
I don't think you read the article you provided to me because it is saying it's more like $25,000. And you still have not demonstrated that you will make up for the debt with energy savings.
Expecting oil companies to solve climate change is like expecting car companies to solve traffic jams.
It's naive thinking.
Carbon taxes and cheap nuclear power. We have had the two main required policy tools and technology since the 1980s to solve climate change.
Those two things are great solutions for the billionaires but absolutely suck for everyone else, no wonder you see them pushed so much.
The first is a tax which will strongly affect the poor while allowing the rich to continue as normal, the second allows the rich to control power generation and essentially continue the monopoly rather than move towards decentralised sources which can be community run.
We need to switch from a greed based system which obsesses over displays of wealth and move to a more ecologically sound way of existence, but people can't even consider taking the slightest responsibility for their lifestyle
Carbon taxes just offload the emissions to poorer regions. This has been studied extensively.
Respectfully, you are retarded