this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
1047 points (97.0% liked)

World News

39371 readers
2342 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pope Francis made his strongest statements yet about climate change Wednesday, rebuking fossil fuel companies and urging countries to make an immediate transition to renewable energy.

In a new document titled “Laudate Deum,” or “Praise God,” the pope criticizes oil and gas companies for greenwashing new fossil fuel projects and calls for more ambitious efforts in the West to tackle the climate crisis. In the landmark apostolic exhortation, a form of papal writing, Francis says that “avoiding an increase of a tenth of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to alleviate some suffering for many people.”

“Laudate Deum” is a follow-up to the pope’s 2015 encyclical on climate change, known as “Laudato Si’,” which lamented the exploitation of the planet and cast the protection of the environment as a moral imperative. When it was released, “Laudato Si’” was viewed as an extraordinary move by the head of the Catholic Church to address global warming and its consequences.

Nearly a decade later, the pope’s message has taken on new urgency.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Exactly. US oil companies won't voluntarily "go green" unless it is more profitable to do so.

I was a production engineer at a US oil company for 5 years and each week I was instructed to calculate what the maximum amount of natural gas each well was allowed to flare while staying exactly below the legal limit. This is natural gas which cannot be sold so it is burned on-site which produces less greenhouse gases than just releasing it to the atmosphere.

Essentially, I was helping them pollute the maximum legal amount in order to maximize profit from the oil production. The gas pipelines hadn't been built yet but the oil company didn't want to wait for that since the oil is more valuable. This was A LOT of gas being burned. The fire balls were enormous and roared, sounding like a helicopter or jet engine at times.

Everything in the company worked this way. Old wells didn't get plugged and cleaned up until the local state government threatened fines. Leaks and spills were only monitored as closely as they were because the state had inspectors going around issuing hefty fines.

[–] FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is the truth that people are too emotional to accept. I do air permitting and also spend every day calculating the "maximum allowable pollution" a site can produce while keeping it within applicable regulatory limits. Even if the CEO was like "alright, time to go green!" and devotes 100% of the profits to operating "green", they'll just get sued by the shareholders and be bankrupt or go to jail. Even if there are no shareholders, their operating costs will skyrocket and they'll be put out of business by the company next door, or even just Saud Arabia.

Passing government regulation is the only way. But we are also operating in a global economy, so you might just end up destroying your entire oil business in the process, sending all of that marketshare to places with even -worse- environmental regulation. Which just comes back to us anyways in the grand scheme of things.

[–] player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Good points, it is certainly a fine line between controlling pollution and hampering a domestic industry which would otherwise be replaced by equally bad overseas industry. As bad as the pollution seemed, the wells were very clean compared to how things used to be done in the US not that long ago, and how I assume things are still done in many parts of the world.

I have a hard time blaming the oil company in isolation, they are just doing what they must do for shareholders, as you said. As long as there is demand for oil, there will be someone there to supply it. I mostly blame the government for not doing more to expedite the development of more economical green solutions.

BUT! Although the company I worked for was not one of the majors who hid climate change, they do have a substantial superPAC to influence politics and elections. The billionaire owner regularly flew to Washington to meet with people, even the president.

And when the state government wanted to increase taxes on oil to help the state pay for public services, the oil company printed lots of protest signs and bussed employees who volunteered to go to the state capital and protest. These types of interference in the government hinder progress and keep the oil companies in control. The gov needs to stop this behavior but I think it's a feedback loop of corruption.