Pathetic and predictable. Almost as if the market doesn't always regulate itself and governments have to fucking hold them accountable.
But I'm sure they already ran athousand adds boasting about their great promiss.
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
271 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5239 readers
448 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They certainly have. I've complained to NYT several times over their full page BP greenwashing ads, citing misinformation. I don't suppose it helps, but it's nice to at least push. I even emailed back and forth with a real person over it, so I got that going for me which is nice.
What's their name? I'll send them this article.
I'm not looking to put real names out here for someone at NYT customer service just doing their job, but you can reach a real person through "contact us" in the app settings. NYT is a legit company with real customer service, but it probably only works if you're a paid subscriber. I find it cathartic to complain to companies about stuff.
Governments can be paid off by these guys easily. It's the civilians that need to put a stop to this. In Minecraft.
The Market buys the government regulators and forces the competition out, thus retiring from being "a market" into being a monopoly. Eventually The Market also buys politicians, just like regulators. It's all very stupid, don't let the econobros distract you.
Lol shocking no one. It was always a lie and always green washing.
Daily reminder that we can either kill capitalism or capitalism will cause the death of humanity. Either way the environment will recover, the question is if its with or without us.
So strange that we as a species choose the latter, because there are so many great toys, it's still comfy enough and cheese tastes good. Why would BP or animal agriculture stop if we keep buying their products?
We do so because the capitalists have brainwashed the masses into consumerism, in addition society is structured around it. Capitalist tyranny therefore cannot be overthrown by voting harder or reducing consumption, the workers and the planet can only be saved with revolution.
But capitalism is not a magic spell, it's something that we all want because we are as greedy as everyone else. In fact the whole world wants to live like us in the west. With no revolution in sight, how do you chose to live? Do you see any personal responsibility? Or do you use capitalist tyranny™ as an excuse to act as irresponsible as well?
I don't think that being part of the current society and doing what that society pushes people to do is a reason to dismiss criticism of that same society. I can acknowledge that I am flawed, that I am part of the problem, and still argue for change on a societal level. Especially because it is easier to act responsibly when everyone does
I agree. I'm all for demanding change, protest, debate, inform. Yet there are many things one can change in his/her life, some very easy, some more difficult. And I think it's important to change yourself as well, so you can demand it from others.
The most frustrating topic being plant based food: It is super easy to stop buying from animal agriculture, you simply decide it by yourself and buy a different thing next time you shop for groceries. People are very demanding when they talk about BP and their very lucrative business model because it's rooted in destruction, oppression and expiation. Then they sit down to eat every day and pay money to the most amoral, destructive, oppressive and exploitative food there is. Because they are accustomed to the taste. Why would BP change if you don't?
It is super easy to stop buying from animal agriculture, you simply decide it by yourself and buy a different thing next time you shop for groceries
and it is entirely ineffective at stopping the growth of animal agriculture
Why would BP change if you don’t?
Because BP isn't a human being it is a legal entity without inherent value other than those that we as a society allow it to have. If society decides BP should stop existing that's just a logistical effort (replacing energy needs, finding jobs for the workers there etc etc) where as if society decides I should stop existing that's a crime against humanity. Putting legal entities and humans on the same level here is a false premise in my eyes.
Also: Arguing for removing BP from the world IS showing a willingness to change personally because it means changing a lot of other stuff too that will affect everyones live.
And I think it’s important to change yourself as well, so you can demand it from others.
I'd argue that that only works on small scales. For big changes we need to agree beforehand that we want and will do the change and then do that change together. Demanding someone jump first won't work here.
Problem with BP is, that the whole world runs on their product. It needs time, negotiations, laws, education and probably riots and sabotage to bring these large scale destroyers down. And they fight back because they earn a trillion dollars each year. Yeah you can ride a bike, please do, but this is not something you can take on by yourself.
Your food, on the other hand, is super personal. As I said, everyone could change their diet tomorrow. It's your choice, no politics involved. None will fight back, they can just show you more ads. If we'd eat only plants we'd solve 25% of the climate crisis over night. We'd stop murdering billions of sentient beings and we'd get healthier. Yet, if I bring this up, everyone starts arguing.
And even of we changed to renewables, all co2 emission from our food alone would shoot us way past 1,5°C warming because we need to stop eating animals anyway.
So, I jumped, many people jumped before me, even more after me. It's a commitment to change, it takes responsibility, it's healthy and fun and a big fuck you to animal agriculture, which is another large scale destroyer. It's the most radical thing most people can do in their lifes, and it tastes good. You should give it a try. :)
I'm not sure I see the difference between bringing big oil down versus bringing animal based food down. Both are critical pillars of our current societies, changing that takes a lot of work (even if we were to convince everyone that that change needs to be done). My personal decisions don't really matter as long as everyone else keeps going the way they are.
That being said I basically have a vegan diet and I very rarely use transportation that runs directly on oil. I just don't think that gives my arguments for societal changes any more weight. These arguments are right in my opinion, independent of whether I already live the change or just argue that the proposed changes would be beneficial.q
If we’d eat only plants we’d solve 25% of the climate crisis over night.
you are exaggerating. all of agriculture is only about 20% ghge
I disagree, we do not want to work our entire lives for poverty wages, we do not want to destroy the environment, and we do not want consumerism. I personally do whatever I personally can while understanding that im limited on a personal level. I believe that every person yearns for the freedom that capitalism cannot provide.
it’s something that we all want
a lot of people don't want capitalism
But black book of communism said communism killed 100 million people (more than what nazism killed), and the streamer by the name Mr. Shit told me that wokism will destroy video games by giving women square jaws, so now I'm a centrist between Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler! /s
He must really hate those latkes!
It's genuinely unhinged that the Black Book of Communism counts Nazi soldiers who died invading Stalingrad as victims.
And there are more insane numbers, that include abortions, because of course...
It's insane that no government or organization is even remotely willing to put these transparently corrupt companies in check.
It’s insane that no government or organization is even remotely willing to put these transparently corrupt companies in check.
Not when you realise who the government actually work for. Corporations having more rights than people is a feature, not a bug.
but think of the shareholders!
Will these bastards ever face accountability?
Let me answer your question with another question.
Will the masses literally having loved ones killed by greed induced climate change ever accept that the toxic social opiates they're fed to remain complacent (social media, fast food, unnecessary plastic crap, literal opiates, etc) aren't worth burning our sole, shared habitat and any future for humanity in the name of short term private profit, and both bring justice to them and accept the necessary reduced quality of life that will come with the necessary destruction of the supply chains destroying the human habitability of the planet for millions of years?
Because incremental change would have been an option... Half a century ago when we were loudly warned. Drastic action is necessary today, the kind that will make a billion including possibly you and I starve. I argue that if there is any decency in our species... At all... we should, otherwise we're telling all potential future generations to go fuck themselves over our Postmates and Pop Figures.
Ok so BP is going to declare bankruptcy and liquidate, and all these cockroaches will scatter into the shadows instead of being held accountable...
Yes.
Cool. An extinction event is also a sort of reset.
Yup, we're fucked.
I dont have, love to share.
I don't have, one who cares.
I-i-i-I-i don't have, anything, since I dont have climate change regulation.
It basically says that we need to impose restrictions on both extraction and any kind of commitment to burning.
How are we supposed to do that though? We're talking about BP partnering with the Iraqi government to extract their oil reserves, which then hit the global market. I realize BP brings technology to the deal but it's not exactly rocket science. I'd love to see moratoriums around the world, but that's going to be a bunch of individual countries/jurisdictions making those decisions. Companies are legally required to maximize profit and that means maximizing extraction. Killing the capitalism and making BP a workers co-op probably gets us the same decision, based on the reticence of any workforce to abandon their livelihood.
Here in the US we're at record oil/gas production but half the country thinks we're killing the entire industry. Like I wish we were actually doing that, but instead we just have the IRA (which is great all things considered) but it's mostly industrial policy focused on mostly the right industries for once.
You could, for example, cap total importation & extraction at a national or regional level, and lower that cap each year.
I'm just having trouble imagining the sort of global cooperation required for something like this. It seems significantly more difficult than a carbon tax, which is practically impossible already.
Cap systems like this are about equivalent to carbon taxes in terms of difficulty in cooperating around, but give certainty about total emissions instead of about future prices. They're mostly not implemented because they make it clear that you need to actually decarbonize.
The US wouldn't actually need to cooperate with other countries, the US GHG footprint is huge. Even considering just the US military, such a scheme would make a massive difference.
If implemented US-wide, it would obviously be an issue how you then tax (cheap) imports made with fossil fuels (which incidentally is a question the EU is already pondering) and what to do about your exports. But it should definitely be possible.
That's a fair point. It still seems like focusing on the supply side would just result in higher prices (I'm thinking just oil imports), while enriching other countries that still pump. So money is sent abroad, Americans pay more and are pissed off and are back to being dependent on global markets. Whereas a tax would lower demand in an "artificial" way that keeps the money in the borders to be used on stuff that benefits people, like enabling the transition itself. Taxes are simple and they work. I imagine we'd have to be basically off oil already before moratoriums would be feasible politically. Gas is a bit different than oil because it's not really a global market, but I'm no expert on this stuff. I just want to the fossil fuels to stay in the ground one way or another.
If we imposed a high minimum for extraction and a large storage requirement we could just bankrupt the industry and drive the global prices down to nothing, making extraction not worth it.
