this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
790 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38987 readers
2088 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Leading energy companies are intent on pushing the world in the opposite direction, expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no alternative. It is evidence that they are motivated not by record warming, but by record profits, experts say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Opafi@feddit.de 97 points 1 year ago (9 children)

expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no alternative.

No alternative? No fucking alternative? Like... We're talking about extinction level scenarios and they're like "yeah, okay, we're all going to die, but I don't think your suggested alternatives to that are viable"

Like, don't they see that their profits ultimately depend on humanity existing to consume their products? What the fuck is wrong with them? Who do they think will bail them out when the planet is too fucking hot to live on?

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They hope or think they will be dead long before that happens and fuck future generations they are sociopaths.

[–] flybynightpotato@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Companies like Exxon literally buy up green technology that could have huge, net-positive, impacts in the climate resiliency sphere/in combating climate change because they don't want the competition. The sheer audacity of this bald-faced fucking lie. What is the point of money on a dead planet, morons?

[–] Indie@lemmy.fmhy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why are these greener companies selling to them?

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Indie@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, no shit. Hadn't thought of that.

Imagine spending all the time and effort just to be bought out by a big terrible monster they have all been claiming were bad. Enjoy the clams.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

They don't know they're getting brought out to be destroyed, it's the same way Microsoft used to operate 'oh this tech is amazing we'll invest and help bring it to the masses!' closely followed by 'ok now you signed it over pack it all up into the incinerator...'

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sure they do

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Why are these greener companies selling to them?

Often because they don't have the capital to roll out their technology and need to go to the market for investment.

But then the investment market fucks them.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like, don’t they see that their profits ultimately depend on humanity existing to consume their products?

Well, that's a problem for the next quarter. Right now we have to push those sales.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Snarky, but accurate.

[–] 99nights@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] dimlo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Problem is the ceos, shareholders are mostly in their 50s so they only have at most 50 years of their lives left. They don’t need to care about the future. They don’t need to care about warming , heating, burning, as they can turn on their AC and stay comfy. Also Many oil production countries are not the most morally responsible countries.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It's also mental illness, they don't need to worry about money either they're rich enough to live wonderful lives already but they are greed obsessed and their ego can only be fed if they're destroying the world

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

And apparently they don't give a fuck about the world their kids and grandchildren will ave to live in.

Bunch of psychopaths.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rich don't give a rats ass about any plebs. They know humanity is doomed. They will live their "best" life possible in resorts or on yachts, etc....until end of times.

[–] kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, they're not the ones who have it hot. They've got airconditioning in their yachts.

[–] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If all of the oil companies comply, all is gonna be well. If only one of them doesnt, things are gonna end up well as well. If only two dont, its probably still gonna be good. If three.....

They just all wanna be that "one company that doesnt comply", so they all dont comply.

There is a known experiment about 100 students being given a choice before a test - choose A and you gain 2 extra points. Choose B and you gain 6 extra points. However, if more than 30% of the students choose B, no one gains anything. From what i checked, in every iteration of this experiment, no one gained anything in the end. Thats just human nature.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Similarly, the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'd go so far as to say if the alternative is extinction, absolutely no action, no matter how drastic and no matter the collateral damage, is unjustified as long as it works.

Yeah, but I think I'd literally die if I were forced to, ugh!, walk to the nearest fast food restaurant. (That's, like, a mile!) How would I order from the drive-thru without a car, huh? Besides, I need the AC because it's so hot out.

(/s, of course)