It’s not just the oil companies but the banks that shelter them. Cant open a weed business but you can open a business that destroys the planet. It’s the politicians sitting on their hands worrying about re election that don’t actually give a fuck. The whole superstructure around these asshole companies is equal in blame
Conservatives absolutely love that they are winning on this front, even though their success is killing them as well. Like a suicide bomber, they don’t care. They need others to suffer in order to feel fulfilled.
In the 1970’s Exxon not only knew about climate change due to the burning of their fossil fuels, they accurately predicted global warming projections. And studies by their internal scientists continued to predict and verify global warming in a bunch of reports between 1977 and 2003. Yet they still continued to lobby against renewable energy and admitted that they still aggressively fought climate change science.
For example, fossil fuel companies have tended to solely measure ‘scope 1’ and ‘scope 2’ emissions. These are the greenhouse gases directly related to their operations. In effect, they consider only the emissions from the exploration, extraction, and production of fossil fuels in their net-zero targets.
As a result, oil majors often do not account for the emissions that consumers generate from the burning of their products. These downstream GHGs are referred to as ‘scope 3’ emissions.
However, since this study evaluates overall production, it prevents companies from shifting responsibility for scope 3 emissions.
This is honestly a really bad take. This is what leads to people saying dumb shit like “a handful of companies cause 90%” of emissions.
The way we end fossil-fuel dependence is by holding downstream companies themselves responsible for Scope 3, thus spurring them to move away from dependence of fossil fuels.
Pinning all accountability on FF companies to have an easy bad guy is absolutely counterproductive to solving the problem.
I’m not sure what you mean by “not encouraging more federally” and the devil is very much in the details on that one.
Carbon Taxes with dividends would be far be the best means we have to switch away from fossil fuels, but the American people would never tolerate it. It’s a political non-starter.
Currently the best method federally is subsidies for green energy/tech adoption, because those things only make 40ish percent of people lose their shit instead of 80%.
For example, fossil fuel companies have tended to solely measure ‘scope 1’ and ‘scope 2’ emissions. These are the greenhouse gases directly related to their operations. In effect, they consider only the emissions from the exploration, extraction, and production of fossil fuels in their net-zero targets.
As a result, oil majors often do not account for the emissions that consumers generate from the burning of their products. These downstream GHGs are referred to as ‘scope 3’ emissions.
Capitalism demands never-ending growth and profits for shareholders. Energy companies should be nationalized, it’s the only way I can think of to rein them in.
Literally execute fossil fuel company execs. Killing the world unapologetically is the greatest crime of all. They have no remorse, continue to do so, and get filthy rich. Unredeemable.
Every day is record heat temperatures and we need the nuclear option at this point. Scum of the earth should be purged. They cannot be rehabilitated and are one of the biggest threats to Earth’s existence.
Cool. And what happens to the company? We can for sure just shut down all oil companies today, and what happens then?
People buy oil. They give these companies money because we want what they have. We need to change our behaviours or the polluting does not stop. It just means our money goes to a new oil company.
Just switch everybody to electric and solar. And wind. Electric cars are becoming more ubiquitous so forcing local municipalities to pass laws requiring all gas stations and parking lots to host charging stations hooked up to solar panels would help. Force municipalities to upgrade the power grid. Then force states to replace coal plants with nuclear ones.
It isn’t hard. It’s just everyone else was convinced nonviolence was more important than anything else, including their own planet. We could’ve done this any time we wanted to, but no one did. So here we are.
Oh, also we can get NASA to help, too. Start building space solar power stations which would alleviate the problems with on-surface solar power collection. Start mining calcium and magnesium from NEAs and lunar regolith and use it to alkanize the oceans and get the fucking CO2 out of it. Put NASA’s budget to work for us. It would alleviate the education problems we suffer, too.
They operate on our collective belief that it will never happen.
If we want to change that we have to start with the thought that it can happen, I'm all for firing squad but if we have to settle at bleeding them dry to cover the very (very) costly climate catastrophe they have brought upon us, so be it.
This is the reason why they've made sure only their brainwashed nutjob militias have all the guns. And also why the police are a bunch of classist racists too, along with much of the military (which primarily recruits from the south).
I don't want to put my conspiracy hat on, but it also might be why "liberal" politicians try to get states with tons of activists to have the strictest gun laws. I'm not a second amendment wingnut, but if the corpos and their fascist storm troopers every decided to start a shooting war with the civilian population, I have no illusions about who'd probably win, given that the average civilian is just a coward who'll back off and comply when even slightly threatened with violence.
People have to be a lot more desperate and there has to be an obvious line to the suffering they’re feeling and the oil CEO’s to make that happen I think.
As it stands they will do anything and everything to divide the people against each other as oppose to against them and they’re doing a good job of it.
I think it’s more likely that buying politicians left and right is a safer and cleaner strategy. In the US it’s also very effective to capture the Supreme Court, so you can get things like Citizens United as legalize political bribes entirely.
I think that, because even an organized militia of activists won’t be able do something against a professional one. You gotta capture the one with the monopoly for violence (the police and the state). When you compare with what happens everywhere else in the world, you can see the same strategy everywhere adapted to the different weaknesses for government capture (pay the dictator, pay the oligarchs, buy the media etc.).
I think that it’s more likely the case that a revolt through not “doing the work” would be successful in the United States. Sure we had armed fights in labor movements, but what I think really moves the needle is people just saying fuck you I won’t work under these conditions. Those atop the pyramid rely much more on other’s labor to sustain themselves.
This is why they also want to keep you poor and drain the social safety net: so that you cannot afford to miss a single paycheck and have no recourse to working all day every day just to feed yourself and your family.
People tend to forget, that labour unions were a compromise created after workers got angry of the exploitation so much that they raided the factory owners and killed them.
Add comment