Researchers say data strengthens case for holding firms to account for their contribution to climate crisis
  • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    I’ve really started to hate this narrative around this.

    These are primarily power companies. So it’s not like if we got rid of these CEOs anything will change. It’s not like those companies can just decide to stop generating power. If they did, that would just leave space a for a different company to come along and do the exact same thing.

    The change needs to come from government regulation and investment in green energy. And to a much lesser extent change in individual and smaller corporate behaviours. Reduce amounts of energy we use where we can, stop consuming useless disposable shit we don’t need that uses energy to be manufactured and also needs to be shipped, etc.

    And the government won’t change anything unless people organise and protest and vote for Green parties.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      2·
      5 days ago

      I’d even make the argument that these companies are directly contributing to the deaths of billions through climate change, the extinction of entire species… It’s not hyperbole. As such, if they refuse to stop what they’re doing, rather than let a relatively small number of people effectively decide the fate of everyone, isn’t it our (‘our’ as in ‘everyone else’s’) moral obligation to stop them, through whatever means necessary?

      If they were threatening to launch nuclear missiles or something, we’d agree that without a doubt they should be stopped and no methods were too extreme, so why is it any different just because the method they’re using is slower?

      • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        This is a flawed take. The fossil firms sell because everyone wants to buy, and everyone wants to buy because the world is still absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. Stuff won’t move without diesel and most of the calories humankind grows needs nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process.

        • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          I can recommend the book “How the World Really Works” by Vaclav Smil for an approacheable way to learn about this without over simplification.

        • kozy138@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          This is also a s flawed take. Why does everyone want to buy? Years of propaganda and lobbying eliminated any possible alternatives. The USA was covered in rail and tram tracks in urban areas, most of which was removed and replaced with automobile infrastructure.

          • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
            1·
            5 days ago

            Why does everyone want to buy?

            Without haber bosch 70% of food production would be gone. People buy food, as food is essential for survival.

            Plastics are made from fossil fuels. Plastics are used, for example, in waterproofing houses, vapor barriers, etc. People use houses for shelter from the cold, rain, heat, …

            • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              1·
              5 days ago

              I only picked the two biggest things I could think of that require fossil fuels, but you’re right. Plastics are used for everything because they are a wonder material. And so are fluorocarbons by the way, that’s why they’re also everywhere.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          What’s your proposal - let them just keep drilling, keep pumping, and keep polluting? It’s “legal” for them to do it, so there should be no guardrails, no accountability? They’ve been pushing back heavily on even legislation to make them pay a considerable amount towards cleanup efforts. The article states:

          “Despite global climate commitments, a small group of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers are significantly increasing production and emissions. The research highlights the disproportionate impact these companies have on the climate crisis and supports efforts to enforce corporate responsibility.”

          What would you have us do?

          • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            1·
            5 days ago

            Regulating the companies would at least be better than just pulling the plug on fossil fuels (that would in the current situation basically stop the world and cause untold amounts of famine and misery).

            • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
              1·
              5 days ago

              I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we just immediately pull the plug on fossil fuels entirely, that’s not at all realistic, but heavily taxing them and using the revenue from those taxes to go towards cleanup and green energy would be a step in the right direction. The reliance on fossil fuels might drop considerably if the price of gas increased heavily. To your point, it’s an industry because people buy it, and people buy it because it’s the most cost effective solution in many cases. If it was no longer cost effective, people would gravitate towards green alternatives where possible.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      I think this headline makes it sound overly simple. Just shutter those 36 companies and we save the world, right? Well, the fossil fuels they vend go on to become the fuel and household products made and sold by thousands of other companies and those are relied upon by all of us all day every day. There’s no single-point fix here. We can’t depend on these monsters AND point the finger at them. A great deal needs to change before we can live without them.