75
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

A columnist at Bloomberg has a similar take

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

What? Profit driven corporations didn't change course after being asked nicely? I'm shocked, shocked I say!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah, well they figured out. It’s easier and cheaper to buy the politicians and block them from passing any decent legislation. You know I don’t like costs $20-$30,000 to buy a politician in the US. 150k to 250k if they’re important.

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

The market is rigged. Fossil fuel subsidies and incentives need to stop if this has to change.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Aren't some of these big oil companies also heavily investing in the clean energy sector at the same time? I mean ultimately it's the future, so I'd be surprised if they weren't.

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

A pittance, and almost always on the condition that they get a new monopoly. Hence why nearly all of it goes to green hydrogen and other things a few chemical companies can create a very profitable monopoly on.

Offhand, I believe it was Shell which offered to put some decent headline figure of money in solar, on the small condition that the panels energy can have a 10% markup in an highly competitive industry with profit magins closer to 2% to 3%.

If you are already part of a very profitable cartel that has convinced the world it is not only necessarily but the reason the standard of living has increased in the last century, you can’t make even more money by becoming just one fish in an highly competitive market. Way back in the seventies they did the numbers, and found the delay, deny, defund was a far better option for making money. It would fail eventually sure, but even if ninty percent of thier profit went to lobbying and funding hate groups it would still be more profitable than entering an actually free energy market.

Besides, the deadline for decarbonisation has always been twenty to thirty years away, it’s not “realistic” to try for anything soooner, and the’ll have retired to thier mansions by then.

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

They do not. The biggest consumer of oil products are in transport and it is car companies who are investing into alternatives there as well as established players in making electric trains. For solar, wind and other forms of clean electricity production it tends to be power plant operators who move to them , rather then oil companies. So that is happening that way. The only one were you see large investment is offshore wind, as oil companies have a good advantage in offshore operations from oil rigs. So a goof bit of knowledge can be transfered. There is investment into hydrogen, but even in that case a lot of it comes from the chemical site of things. However most chemical companies are independent from oil companies.

So big oil just tries to make as much money as they can and pay it out in dividends. The shareholders can invest it into whatever they prefer.

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

Luckily we have some rays of light in the darkness though!
I came across this other Lemmy post about Portugal and clean energy!

[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Yeah, a number of jurisdictions have hit the point where they can achieve 100% renewable electricity for short periods of time; California and Finland both come to mind as well.

It's going to take a lot more to get to the point where the world can do it on an ongoing basis though.

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

I can believe so.

We must always start with the smallest achievements!

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

Well you gotta make money and live large before the world collapses, duh...

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

Well, in terms of investment opportunities, that just means renewable energy stocks are basically on sale. They will go up in the future. It’s just a long-term payoff.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
75 points (97.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5061 readers
416 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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