451

Guy Walton has christened two previous heatwaves this summer Amoco and BP in attempt to name and shame fossil fuel firms

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] supercheesecake@aussie.zone 46 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of here in Oz, people were getting punched with what was called a “king hit”, basically some drunk idiot grabbing someone and hitting them hard enough to kill them.

Then the media started to relabel it a “coward punch” (which it really was) which caught on. This had a measurable impact on these idiots punching like that and the number of deaths went down.

[-] docious@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

Us people on the west coast of the Americas need to adopt this tactic.

[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

We always had another word for it though: sucker punch. Also, where are the stats on it having a measurable impact? It was widely seen as a pretty lacklustre thing at the time. I’d argue the real impact was the massive increase is sentencing guidelines for king hits/coward punches that turned them into murder charges if they died from the hit.

In the same vein, we should be charging companies that are causing this impact to the climate. I’d say there’d be real change then.

[-] supercheesecake@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

That would be called a carbon tax, and Oz was too stupid there and took the fear mongering hook line and sinker :(

[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ah nah i know about that, I meant actually charging them with actual crimes and throwing them in gaol

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That would be entirely unreasonable, because the ideal is not zero carbon output, it's reducing carbon output to a sustainable level.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

If they run out of names go ahead and name them after Evengelical leaders

[-] tal@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yelling at Amoco or BP makes no sense.

Those are oil companies. They operate within the bounds set out for them. If there is an externality present, some kind of positive or negative effect not captured in the market price of what they're selling -- say, that burning oil produces carbon dioxide -- it's not the job of the company to address that, but of market regulators. If a company did refrain from extraction, another company would just step in -- a competitive market specifically should not allow any one company to withhold a resource from the market; a company that did that would have monopoly power. As it stands, market regulators have a market says that companies should extract oil, so that's what they're doing.

If sale of oil doesn't incorporate the cost of carbon emissions, or if oil shouldn't be sold at all, that's an issue for the regulators.

A company getting yelled at is going to make some polite noises and brush complaining people off, not because they're not doing their job, but because restricting global oil consumption is not their job.

You want to complain at someone, complain at market regulators, because they're the ones that are responsible for taking into account said externalities, not the companies that operate in those markets.

You'd yell at a company if the company were breaking the laws that have been put in place for it, or something like that -- if BP were smuggling black-market oil or something, then that's an issue with BP. But as things stand, they're acting as the system intends.

[-] 1chemistdown@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago

Regulators are never going to regulate unless the public gets mad enough at those companies to do something like vote against every politician that props the anti regulatory environment that benefits those companies at the cost of the world.

[-] 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Correct! Regulators are going to vote to do whatever benefits the oil companies, because the heads of the companies have the money and don't care about their fellow humans or the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[-] GataZapata@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago
[-] Ni@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

There have been so many targeted projects to weaken the publics understanding of climate change as a whole and activists personally. It's high time that these companies reinvest their record breaking profits into fixing the problem they have a large hand in creating.

[-] solstice@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I agree with you except for the fact that oil companies have known about climate change for many decades and have actively paid for pseudo-science studies and other disinformation, plus lobbying, to minimize regulation and maximize profit. So they can go fuck themselves for that.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

They hired the lobbyists and paid for the misinformation

[-] Fibby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago
[-] Bleach7297@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, yelling at both is a perfectly reasonable option.

[-] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

This is an Olympic gold medal level of willful ignorance that honestly isn't believable. This post is just too naive to be from a real person. Oh, companies just operate within a market that they have no influence on, do they? They're just subject to regulation crafted by others, the poor dears. Please.

[-] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Why does nobody understand economics?

[-] vd1n@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

We should start naming mass shooters and serial killers after politicians and cops.

[-] skhayfa@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Great initiative!

[-] vin@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Brilliant idea! Could do other companies that lobby against decarbonisation. But wouldn’t this have trademark issues?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I thought you can only own a trademark in context.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
451 points (100.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3316 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS