Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Gemmabeta t1_j8g9h9h wrote

Didn't BP just announce a few days ago that they've made so much money off of petroleum these past year or so that they are scaling back their renewable initiatives?

209

Nobody4831 t1_j8gahuc wrote

https://leaders.com/news/business/bp-backs-away-from-renewables/

Yea…

127

dolerbom t1_j8i7dy5 wrote

They can have a lot of profits when they get nationalized and tried at the Hague.

So tired of politicians pretending that we can rely on the same people that put us in this mess to get us out of it.

39

Ralfpker t1_j8ittb2 wrote

They'll keep pretending as long as they keep getting their cut of the profits.

10

nordhand t1_j8i0zyq wrote

BP the guys that invented the carbon footprint to defect away from them just having the wost oil spill in history and ruined most of the coastline in the gulf of Mexico. They have never carried about the environment only thier bottom line

37

LeftieDu t1_j8j03r9 wrote

I work at a company where because of all this carbon footprint stuff we are introducing measures to reduce it, because that's what customers expect of us now. What I'm trying to say is I don't think there is anything wrong with idea of carbon footprint itself, if applied to places where it matters.

6

KanoeKnight t1_j8j4h4p wrote

The point of mentioning the carbon footprint is to call BP hypocrites because they were the ones that created it

7

birberbarborbur t1_j8grfjn wrote

As a louisianian i can say that’s a Common BP L and there are smarter companies who can look farther to the future

31

superhot42 t1_j8hewdg wrote

Didn’t they cause an oil spill?

11

Vigitiser t1_j8hkg41 wrote

Which oil spill. Most companies have done several

14

Fanace5 t1_j8i7mln wrote

True, everyone remembers the AT&T Brazilian Oil Spill of '93

7

ProleAcademy t1_j8i289k wrote

That's the sound of a company that definitely shouldn't have its assets seized and its executives tried and executed wink wink

8

Martholomeow t1_j8gtbc6 wrote

My father is a Trump loving, conservative who thinks climate change is a hoax, but he drives an ev and has solar panels on his roof. Why? Because it saves him money.

166

UsernameIn3and20 t1_j8gz17y wrote

Possibly the only way to convince climate change deniers to go green.

75

alsomahler t1_j8hit2f wrote

Capitalism works.

−14

Jonano1365 t1_j8hjdxz wrote

Yep, those 50 years of sabotaging progress to sell more oil is sure working out for us.

28

UsernameIn3and20 t1_j8hun93 wrote

Dont worry, 20 years later it'll be found out that our current green solutions is somehow worse and is causing devastating damage to the ecosystem, then we're gonna waste another 80 years bickering about it until the new solution becomes cheaper, thus creating the cycle.

6

allonzeeLV t1_j8is5vo wrote

Capitalism was the source of this problem. Capitalism is a fucking disease and on our current trajectory will be the cause of humanity's mass destruction in the name of private profit.

11

LesserPolymerBeasts t1_j8h2otc wrote

My neighbor is (until he took it down last fall) a Trump-flag-flying loudmouth. But I finally shut him up when I asked if he'd rather make solar panels here or just let China own the growing worldwide market.

36

Idliketothinkimsmart t1_j8heqra wrote

"Even if countries meet commitments made under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world is heading for a 3.2 degrees Celsius"

Green capitalism isnt gonna save us.

50

Enk1ndle t1_j8j20ht wrote

Progress over perfection, even if we end up with a damaged earth it's a hell of a lot better than if we just said fuck it and kept doing what we were doing.

10

Idliketothinkimsmart t1_j8j48c4 wrote

That's like the difference of riding a moped into a brick wall at 90 mph as opposed to 150. Capitalism as a system is inherently driving climate change.

Portions of the planet becoming unhabitable isn't progress. Developed countries, despite driving almost a majority of emissions since the 1700's, might be able to get by, but for how long until tens of millions of migrants rightfully seek shelter, how long until wars & civil unrest are sparked over resources, how long until fascists take hold of people's frustrations and turn it against one another? That isn't progress.

6

Enk1ndle t1_j8j4seb wrote

A portion becoming inhabitable beats the entire planet becoming inhabitable, what are you talking about? You're saying extinction is the same as a 3c raise in temperature.

5

Idliketothinkimsmart t1_j8j5rrc wrote

What I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to ignore the elephant in the room. Capitalism needs endless growth. The 3.2 projection is by no means static. There's really no reason tens, if not hundreds of millions of people need to suffer so capitalists can continue to keep making money.

That's not something anyone should be interested in seeing happen.

0

Bdor24 t1_ja0q7yp wrote

A bit late to the conversation, but I'm just posting to point out that this number is very misunderstood.

According to the most recent projections, 3.2 degrees of warming is the absolute worst-case scenario. It can only happen if the world does nothing at all to improve on the policies that currently exist... and even then, it's the higher estimate in a wide range of possibilities. But if states honor the pledges they made up to 2030, that'll bring us down to 2.6. And if they honor all of their announced pledges, we get 2.0.

These numbers represent a massive improvement over the status quo that existed less than a decade ago, when the worst-case scenario was 4 degrees Celcius and failure seemed inevitable. While the Paris Agreement might technically fail (we're still very unlikely to reach 1.5), activists in every sector have already made enormous progress. It got the ball rolling.

It's not a hopeless fight. Every little bit of progress equates to countless lives saved.

1

TheNoIdeaKid t1_j8hed72 wrote

Making it about money is the only way to get people in America to pay mind to it.

40

darkrose3333 t1_j8grgpr wrote

Great, let's keep the momentum going

20

Jonano1365 t1_j8hjj10 wrote

The current "momentum" still has us headed for catastrophic climate change.

11

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8hla04 wrote

No it actually doesn't. As it is, we're heading for roughly +1.8 degrees. That's seriously damaging but not catastrophic.

But those predictions are assuming constant activism and constant efforts to implement renewables and fossil fuels. We need to work hard to meet those assumptions.

−4

Jonano1365 t1_j8hryh2 wrote

Semantics. The Middle East and India are in for deadly heatwaves and wet bulb events respectively, those will displace tens of millions of people at a minimum, that's a catastrophe in my eyes.

13

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8hucr1 wrote

It is semantics, but semantics are important here. Displacing tens of millions of people is different to killing hundreds of millions - and that's the difference between serious impact and catastrophe. If we use the worst words for bad outcomes, what words do we use for the worst outcomes?

We need to be able to explain to people the difference between 3 degrees and 1.8 degrees. Because there is a massive difference between the impacts of those temperatures.

6

Jonano1365 t1_j8i1qvw wrote

What're you talking about? The current trajectory isn't acceptable, we failed to tackle climate change, and the outcomes *will* be catastrophic. Displacement (and inevitably, death) of tens of millions *is* catastrophic.

The fact that the situation feasibly could be worse doesn't make the situation better.

You wanna be clear in your communication? How about this ranking:

  1. Catastrophic climate change.
  2. Societal collapse.
  3. Threat of extinction.

We're at 1 at the moment. Downplaying the threat of climate change (which, in my opinion, you are doing right now) is incredibly dangerous. In a lot of peoples mind if it's not catastrophic then there's no rush (look at any climate conference). Not pressing the grave importance of immediate climate action is how we end up with even worse outcomes.

3

GenericFatGuy t1_j8icvml wrote

How the fuck does displacing tens of millions of people not sound catastrophic to you?

2

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8idm5k wrote

It is catastrophic. But that leaves no room for the description of worse outcomes.

5

GenericFatGuy t1_j8if12x wrote

Sure it does. It's called even more catastrophic. Calling the displacement of tens of millions of people as "seriously impacting" just gives people wiggle room to downplay the crisis as not as bad as it's being made to seem.

0

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8ijm9j wrote

If you just continuously describe things as "even more" whatever, you are going to have a very hard time explaining the real situation to the public.

1

Jonano1365 t1_j8jtlrk wrote

So use better descriptors.

"Destabilizing to society"

"Cataclysmic"

"Endangering the survival of humanity"

"Extinction level threat"

"A danger to all life on Earth"

There's plenty of room to increase the severity of the language used. The fact that you're opposed to describing the projected effects of climate change as catastrophic is mind boggling to me.

2

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8jv6ds wrote

I'm not opposed to describing 2.5 degree + as catastrophic, I just think that describing 1.8 degree as catastrophic makes the rest of the scale meaningless.

I'd say 1.8 would cause "serious destabilization of society", 2.2 "massive destabilisation of society", 2.5 "catastrophic", 2.8 "cataclysmic", 3.2 "threatening breakup of society", 3.5 "apocalyptic", 3.8 "threatening extinction", 4.1 "hope that the Svalbard seed vault works after the survivors leave the bunkers", 4.4 "at least antarctica will be nice after we're gone".

0

Jonano1365 t1_j8l9x13 wrote

Can I get you to acknowledge that we're looking at an area currently occupied by 20-ish percent of the human population becoming next to uninhabitable without constant and energy intensive airconditioning? To me that fits any definition of catastrophic, regardless of where you live on the planet.

We can't keep on moving the goalpost on climate action, not so many years ago the discourse was that we had to limit the increase to 1.5degrees to avoid the worst effects.

1

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j8m6etg wrote

I'm not advocating for moving the goalposts at all. We should attempt to push it down to 1.5 and then zero.

1

Jonano1365 t1_j8mf4we wrote

The only way that has any feasibility of happening is if we're honest about the severity of the consequences we're headed towards. Using soft language around climate change gives politicians and corporations who are dragging their feet plausible deniability. Pointing out that their hesitancy is putting millions and millions of lives at risk is necessary to push them to action.

If you went back to the 90's, the outcomes we're talking about as realistic today were seen as fear mongering, now it's just the cost of doing business. And that slow creep will continue if we don't address it.

2

FREE-AOL-CDS t1_j8gbio8 wrote

This isn’t uplifting! An ounce of prevention and all that.

19

MechanicalMan64 t1_j8h7v4u wrote

It's almost as if spending money on R&D on a technology that provides a basic requirement of our civilization while needing a fragment of the logistical support, of previously the old technology was a good long term investment.

12

mundaniacal t1_j8hhmr2 wrote

"Seen as profitable" is not the same as "profitable".

This article isn't saying that the cost of green technology production has decreased or even that private companies want to sell green technology to customers, rather that governments are more willing to pour tax money into green tech and companies are happy to gobble that money up.

Sorry, another depressing comment by me in r/upliftingnews .

3

dolerbom t1_j8i874a wrote

The economy is a function of the government. Specifically, it is a function of the United States government. Building renewables could have always been profitable because we could have shaped regulations to where that was the only option. Jobs would have still been created, value would have still been created, and the economy would have moved just as efficiently.

The only difference is there would be different winners and losers. Our government has always picked the same people who put us into this mess to be the winners.

3

BuddyJim30 t1_j8idfgd wrote

Apparently corporations and governments will "embrace green" if they can "make green" from it.

3

allonzeeLV t1_j8irq5d wrote

"Ok, I guess we'll stop terraforming the planet to be hostile towards human life, as long as there's profit to be made by it."

It's difficult to overstate how shitty humanity is.

3

AutoModerator t1_j8g45x4 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

CarCaste t1_j8j4gjv wrote

It's always been profitable for one entity or another

1

MadCat221 t1_j8idbeh wrote

The problem still remains with Capitalism only understanding things in monetary terms.

0

snewz404 t1_j8x8fij wrote

What is uplifting about crapitalism, which ruined the environment, now making profit off of it? Why are we happy that companies can make profit off of destruction? What is this timeline?

And are companies actually doing what they are saying? I highly doubt it because lying and cover up is the norm these days.

0

MarcoYTVA t1_j8h49ox wrote

Now a global cooling crisis is inevitable

−9

AphexTwins903 t1_j8hgw38 wrote

Under capitalism? Not a fucking chance!

4

MarcoYTVA t1_j8hhz30 wrote

If fighting global warming is profitable, capitalism guarantees someone will go too far for a few extra bucks

1

Vigitiser t1_j8hkkox wrote

Global temperature is still going to rise by up to 3 degrees dude, global cooling won’t be even a suggestion of an issue for a good hundred years or so

3

fungussa t1_j8vglw9 wrote

Why are you trying to use your beliefs to ignore science?

1

MarcoYTVA t1_j8vhn38 wrote

Why are you being overdramatic?

0

fungussa t1_j8vnwvd wrote

Highlighting the fact, that you're ignoring science, is not 'being overdramatic'. So can you answer the question?

1

MarcoYTVA t1_j8wufeg wrote

My point as that, if it's profitable, people will take it too far. How am I ignoring science?

1

fungussa t1_j8wzpqo wrote

The Earth is not in any way going to cool in the near to medium term. Fact.

Who is having a future of "living within one's means" profitable? Less consumerism, less energy usage, personal carbon footprints etc.

1

Electrical-Bed8577 t1_j9o20dj wrote

Actually true in a sense, Marco- . Warming lowlands and oceans instigate stratospheric instability with polar vortex weakening, so polar vortex spills out, drops a freeze down, seeking homeostasis? It's gonna get alot hotter and way colder while it gets alot wetter but then windier and drier... but yeah, alot hotter.

1