this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
447 points (97.9% liked)

Not The Onion

11675 readers
1168 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Says exec of company that has objectively caused more environmental harm to the world than any others

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 120 points 10 months ago (34 children)

Petrochemicals and the energy from fossil fuels did provide the needed food and energy to boost our standard of living.

HOWEVER

By the time we knew they were affecting the climate, we had the technology to move off of them and didn't because of assholes like this.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] WaxedWookie 48 points 10 months ago

They're not selling a product that's evil - they are evil.

Petrochemicals lack the agency required for moral culpability.

[–] Carighan 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

we're not selling a product that is evil

Oh I get it. The oil isn't inherently evil. You are, both as a CEO and as a company! I agree, in fact. If we left the oil safely in the earth, there'd be nothing evil about it.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

“We’re not selling an evil product, we’re just running a multibillion dollar cartel in an evil way. That’s totally different.”

[–] Wogi 14 points 10 months ago

We don't profit off of suffering, we provide it for free!

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Plastic in the oceans, Co2 and heavy metals in the air, war, and above all: Wednesday morning traffic (worst day where I am due to WFH rules still being decently widespread).

Looks like someone needs a bullet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're selling Earth blood that makes the sky melt.

That's pretty fucking evil.

[–] TwoGems 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the brown people that die in the name of oil or propping up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well I for one want to know how my oil got under their land. Why is no one asking these important questions?

[–] SCB 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oil isn't evil. Oil has many uses outside of being burned for energy, and once we transition away from fossil fuels entirely there will still be a place for oil companies.

This isn't what he meant, of course, but hopefully his successor will understand that and make the pivots necessary for the company to survive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Like plastics? I can only think of fuel and plastic uses for oil.

[–] SCB 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's also a component in some industrial products, primarily lubricants and solvents - the latter of which was kinda funny to me because you commonly use solvents to clean off oil

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh I guess road asphalt is a contributer too. I wonder if those uses eventually contribute to ghgs though degradation over time.

Petrol uses

[–] SCB 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I didn't know about asphalt, so thanks for that.

Also curious about potential ghg there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Asphalt does off-gas compounds, though not sure how many of those compounds are GHGs:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb9785

[–] calypsopub 4 points 10 months ago

Vitamin and mineral supplements

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So basically fraud in service of destroying our only planet on the way to making a gajillion dollars. Fair enough, so we extract enough of that money to reverse the catastrophic harm they have done.

[–] hogunner 8 points 10 months ago

I hope you’re right but I fear it may be a Humpty Dumpty situation.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 2 points 10 months ago

I bet we don't even have to baste him he's so greasy

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Well yeah - it's not an evil product. As an inanimate object, it can't possess a moral quality.

Moral qualities are only rightly assigned to conscious beings - like, for example, corporate CEOs.

[–] Coreidan 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nice mental gymnastics. That’s the name of the game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Gosh, these guys really are following the big tobacco playbook, huh?

"Oil isn't evil, it's just a material, it doesn't have will or consciousness."

He's right of course, the oil itself isn't forcing anyone to use it. It's the decades of collaboration between the fossil fuel lobby and the government that's entrenched our fossil fuel dependent infrastructure, along with the resolute refusal of all fossil fuels companies to turn their backs on making as much money as they possibly can right this instant (because smart long term growth is illegal, brain dead quarterly growth is now my friend) and make good on their promises to pivot their energy portfolios.

In so many words, oil isn't evil, but the people running the oil companies are.

[–] neanderthal 5 points 10 months ago

At this point, now that their are viable alternatives (Renewables, Geothermal, Nuclear) and ways to drastically reduce their usage (War on Cars), oil should be a niche product for airplanes and construction vehicles. Large ocean cargo ships could be nuclear powered, although it would probably raise the cost of building the ships and the crew. As far as ships go, not everything needs to be shipped from the other side of the world.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 2 points 10 months ago

By better you mean aiding in killing off most higher life forms and ocean life?

load more comments
view more: next ›