933
Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
933 points (98.7% liked)
World News
32286 readers
927 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Too many people believe they can just continue living like they were 30 years ago - if big oil would stop producing stuff and plastics, gas and airplane fuels would not be available anymore then people would riot
Even threatening to increase prices to a level that would make sense to limit the use to absolutely necessary levels would piss off too many people to be a viable option because everyone just wants to believe that it's just for "the others" to change but not for themselves.
Everyone has to act and change their Livestyle...
Lol that's the world's largest prisoner dilemma, never going to happen. People are big children, and you need to treat them as such. You don't let the child decide whether it's going to eat candy or real food, you take away the option of candy because they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are good for them in the long run. This is no different, it's why we have things like regulations and the FDA.
Yeah exactly but in our situation we also have the children voting and one party is promising them to not take away the candy
I really don't see how this can ever work out... :/
Not to mention the “adults” in this comparison don’t actually care about the child or the candy, they just care about retaining the ability to control your candy and will do anything and everything to keep stockpiling that sweet, sweet money.
Absolutely correct. I myself don't have children, don't have a car, and I don't eat meat. Just pick any of those 3 and try to deal with the reactions to it. People are big children.
You do realize that they are children ruled by other children who shouldn't get that kind of authority? Do you know what children with power over other children do?
Cool metaphor and all, but just want to be super clear. We're talking about regulating oil, right? And plastics, coal, other fossil fuel derivatives. And no one's going to come take away my candy. Stay away from my candy. Don't take it, it's mine.
This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.
And don't @ me about "100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions". Who's buying those corporations' goods? Who's refusing to vote for politicians that'll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who's spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that'll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don't mean "direct action" (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that'll have a real impact on people's real lives.
Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don't want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.
And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it's the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.
Not to mention that the gas companies were reporting record profits after increasing the price.
Policy like regulating those 100 corporations?
Yes. I said so explicitly in my previous comment.
Seems odd to say
People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the "you're the ones buying the goods" people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.
It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.
In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don't get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.
In the US, 3rd parties effectively don't exist and you're throwing away your vote.
Vote blue. Remember that Joe Manchin of all people epically played the GOP to get us the IRA. Even corpo shills can advance our cause. Throwaway votes cannot.
100%. People usually argue for one to the exclusion of the other but we need both.
Only one actually works.
You can do personal responsibility alone all you want. Nobody will join you. Government regulation affects everyone.
Selling people on personal responsibility is what the oil companies want, because they know it doesn't work. It gives you the chance to be high and mighty, while nobody else reduces their consumption, so their profits stay the same.
Definitely consume less if you can, but don't delude yourself into thinking that individual actions in reducing personal consumption achieve anything. Go out there and vote for politicians who propose better climate policies, maybe assassinate some oil, gas and coal company execs, etc.
Did you just completely not read the context of the conversation that prompted my comment? At all? You seriously just pulled my comment out of context, made a straw man out of it, and started arguing. What the actual tittyfucking Christ.
Unfortunately your comment was wrong.
Wow
And you're still refusing to read the context. Impressive pigheadedness
I did, you're just wrong. Personal responsibility stops working at large scales and can not, MUST not be depended upon. The more people you need to be responsible, the smaller the percentage that will be.
That's why we have laws and need to have better laws regarding pollution and consumption.
And now you're LYING about it, that's hilarious!
I'll let you off the hook.
DreamerOfImprobableDreams started it with the "don't @ me about 100 corporations". At which point I called him out by saying the exact same shit you're saying to me now. That's how I know you didn't read the context.
Embarrassed yet?
When I brought up that "personal responsibility" is a propaganda point from corpos, he clarified that he was talking in the context of "policy driven changes that force companies to decarbonize will have a negative effect on people's lives", ie gas prices will go up, oil riggers will lose their jobs, etc. Market friction. It will suck a little bit.
As hh93 said, and I agreed to,
That's "personal responsibility" in the context we were all talking about.
So clearly you didn't read a damn thing from the comment thread prior to my comment, and then you DOUBLED DOWN on refusing to read and lied about reading.
That was bad, and you should feel foolish.
Sorry, I'm so used to hanging out in left-of-center places I make the mistake of assuming everyone understands how BS the whole "personal responsibilty" shtick is and is onboard with strict regulations to fight climate change. So I tend not to explicitly call it out in my posts, assuming it goes unsaid. Which might be a bad assumption to make in more centrist / non-explicitly-liberal spaces.
Will try to be clearer in the future :)
Emissions can’t be stopped at the point of consumption.
They didn't say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don't even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won't be living with much at all.
Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.
Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.
This is it exactly. We have to turn off the f*cking spigot at the source!
There is no amount of science or innovation that's going to save us. It's going to take "holy shit we're all going to die horribly" panic from world leaders to forcefully cut off the source, which is oil and its byproducts.
Short of that, no amount of responsible consumerism can stem this tide.
Not immediately but they'll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.
And that'll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.
It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn't work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that's why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.
"Think globally, act locally" and other such clever slogans that seemed so logical and made so little impact.
How about "round up the heads of oil companies and deliver them to a firing squad?"
Not as much zing to it though.
That can never work. You can’t boycott a business into not producing.
It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.
I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.
Our society is 100% car centered. My kids' schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it's over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I'm happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn't feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can't work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.
Maybe don't move somewhere that your job and kids school is hundreds of miles away? My child's school is down the street, and I can take the subway to work in about 15min. This was a specific choice my wife and I made when we chose to live here.
Hundreds of miles? I think you misread. They're several miles away.
Also it's a lot easier said than done to just up and move somewhere more convenient. I don't have that luxury, and telling me to do so will get you a big fat "go fuck yourself" from me for being so insufferable about it.
Now move along and go bug someone else with your luxury conveniences.
Holy privilege Batman
"Just don't live in a place like that" rofl
Oh great, let's use privilege as a bludgeon to enforce the status quo. This is great and also happens to be indistinguishable from doing nothing.
I'm saying your proposed solution is not possible.
It's possible for billions today right now including millions in America. So maybe you should expand your understanding of what is possible instead of being a reactionary fighting change.
How. Explain.
Billions of people in the world live without cars. The possibilities of this don't need to be explained since they are actively occurring across the world. Within America there are ~10% of household that do not have a car. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/22/u-s-cities-have-more-car-free-households-than-you-think This is a good thing btw, and it should fully demonstrate that such a life is absolutlely possible, and could be improved and expanded.
So you're saying that in areas which allow for people to live without cars, people live without cars, and this is why people who live in areas that DON'T allow for people to live without cars, should also live without cars? What?
If the environment is designed solely for cars, you can't just ditch your car. And unless you're wealthy you can't just up and move.
I'm saying if you voluntarilly move to a place that requires a car, your opinion is made clear: you don't give a shit about the future and your selfishness is apparent.
If i could buy none polluting alternatives to anything i currently buy, you can bet your life that i would.
But i dont have alot of choice.
I do what i can.
Maybe ill give it all up and go live in the woods somewhere. Become self sufficient. Maybe the capitalists will notice im gone..... or not... probably not.
I agree with you.. It passes people off because their entire life is dependent on fossil fuels. When its been encouraged by society/government for decades and now people have to drive miles to get to the nearest grocery store/point of interest they don't have an alternative that isn't uprooting their whole lives.
If you are going tax gas what it should be taxed, you also need to simultaneously make changes that will help people transition to sustainable alternatives. An amount of people will resist no matter what but you need a carrot to go along with the stick.
Where I live we get one or more times a week 40°C and over days.
Going from home to work is a 30 minutes drive for me. I drive a 2004 petrol Opel Agila.
The train requires you to be on-point, otherwise is a 50 minutes wait for the next run. Also, from the main train station to work is a 20 minutes added walk. This is not too bad, but the worst part is doing the walk under the heat we have here during the summer. Good thing it ends up actually being cheaper than driving my Agila, counting a subscription is €30 while I fuel €15 each week.
The bus is never on-point, always late, always destroyed, always trashy, always overwhelmingly full, skips runs and its not uncommon for it to stop working while you are on it. And you still need the 20 minutes walk. By the way, its too a paid service.
When I will be able to financially, I want to at least move to a newer electric vehicle or use the train during fall and winter. But at least right now during summer, I just can't without arriving at work like a bucket of salt water had been thrown at me (as there is little good shade on the way) and we don't have showers at work.
Other people might not even have the chance to made this decision, as public services can be even harder to use in some other areas.
I "kinda" disagree, because we have a lot of alternatives now. Some are more expensive, some need a bit more work, but the alternatives are there and are coming as well. And little changes can do good things, for example not eating Avocados is something everyone can do. If only 50k people stop eating Avocados, that's one hell of an impact in the rainforest areas. Because those 50k people don't eat one Avocado per Month, they eat a lot more (generally). A single Avocado Tree can produce 80-100 Kg per year and generally, avocados are somewhere between 500-900 g. So maybe 120-150 Avocados per year, per tree. Then there's meat - we don't have to stop eating it, we have to reduce and it would make a HUGE impact, especially considering Beef from Brazil isn't even that great, but the rainforest get's destroyed for it.
And so on. It even goes so far, that if people still want to drive their gas guzzlers, they can, but they need synthetic fuels which are expensive but 100% carbon neutral. So the Lifestyle does not need changing necessarily - it just needs some adjustments and especially more conscious consumption - especially in those countries, where capitalism is in "full effect" and where we "rich people" actually make impacts with our buying decisions. (Even if they are extremely small, if you tell friends you are doing things different, they may do as well)