Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn t1_iyxp3x3 wrote

Instead, they probably invested it into a vanguard etf that has oil companies as components.

112

throwaway4206983 t1_iyy0dm3 wrote

Or it's something convenient where they just donated to an oil execs adjacent business lol

9

Karineh t1_iyybwou wrote

Okay great. Now I hope they decide to pay their Philly taxes

28

AbsentEmpire t1_iz07r96 wrote

They, along with churches and non profits, don't have a tax bill. Anything they pay is completely voluntary.

3

porkchameleon t1_iyy6iie wrote

Key word is “direct”.

Let’s follow them investments all the way now, shall we?

17

collectallfive t1_iywurbj wrote

"We must move away from fossil fuels, but we can only do so completely once we can produce abundant, affordable, and secure energy from carbon-free sources."

Do we need to maintain current energy consumption? We can reduce energy usage, carbon emissions, and microplastics by not continuing to churn out cheap, flimsy consumer goods made out of plastic. An enormous amount of energy is devoted to this future garbage. That's not even taking into account the amount of unnecessary air travel people take.

9

givemesendies t1_iyxq7m5 wrote

We should reduce, and we can reduce, but the consumption cat is out of the bag.

Ask yourself, what is easier: getting 2 billion people to stop eating beef OR bio engineering a cow that doesn't fart methane? Same applies to airplanes. It's easier to build a carbon neutral airplane than getting rid of air travel.

16

collectallfive t1_iyxr47e wrote

I just don't believe this is true. There is no reason to have intracontinental air travel when we have miles and miles of underutilized rail. Nevermind the fact that since the pandemic we don't necessarily need to be tied to the desk or home to get work done. I'd love to take a week to cross the country by slower, less energy-intensive forms of travel. Reducing working hours with a more equitable system of employment can easily accommodate that.

Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Infinite growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

−9

givemesendies t1_iyxwjpu wrote

My point is that getting people to alter their behavior is very difficult. In addition, no one does anything for free. We "should just" do many things, but anytime a plan of action is prefaced by "should just", it generally is ignoring all the people who have an interest in avoiding the plan.

> There is no reason to have intracontinental air travel when we have miles and miles of underutilized rail.

Who will spend the money to fix it and make it usable for passenger travel? Does it go where passengers want to go? When will the rail route be marketplace competitive with air travel?

> Nevermind the fact that since the pandemic we don't necessarily need to be tied to the desk or home to get work done.

Not everyone is an office worker.

> I'd love to take a week to cross the country by slower, less energy-intensive forms of travel.

That's your choice, but many people do not have the patience or time.

> Reducing working hours with a more equitable system of employment can easily accommodate that.

How would this even connect with financially competitive rail?

14

AbsentEmpire t1_iz07f1l wrote

You may have the time to take 5 days to cross the country by rail to a very limited amount of cities, and for an absurd amount of money, but not everyone else does.

Until the US decides that railroad track nationalization and infrastructure investment should be a priority, intercity flights will be a common and in demand service.

3

collectallfive t1_iz084id wrote

I don't have a job that allows me to do this currently. But I'd imagine that any shift in society that would allow for more work-from-home hours and more time off would also shift administrative responsibilities from managerial roles since it requires more cooperation and autonomy within the work unit to achieve. There are lots of process documentation tasks that my department needs to do right now but simply doesn't have the time or incentive to focus on.

−1

AbsentEmpire t1_iz0815l wrote

Meh, let's see where that money really went, highly doubt they're not investing indirectly in fossil fuel companies, the return on investment is just to good not to.

They're probably in a fund that holds fossil fuel companies, associated conglomerates, and this is pure green washing for PR.

4

jambomyhombre t1_iyxljpf wrote

Decades too late. Better late than never I guess...

−2