this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

17225 readers
1649 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Says exec of company that has objectively caused more environmental harm to the world than any others

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Petrochemicals and the energy from fossil fuels did provide the needed food and energy to boost our standard of living.

HOWEVER

By the time we knew they were affecting the climate, we had the technology to move off of them and didn't because of assholes like this.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

The sad part is that he may be right because the urgency to transition off fossils is lost in our desire not to be inconvenienced. Don’t mention the bribes (some call them donations) to political parties, candidates and Supreme Court judges.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

we had the technology to move off of them

We still don't have the technology to move of them. Energy storage is severely lacking.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I bet if we had started the process in the 1970s like Carter wanted we'd be a lot further along by now.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's possible, but it's not like technology halted in that time and there has been a big energy independence drive regardless of Reagan.

The harsh truth is that we still need fossil fuels today.

We're probably going to need them for decades to come, even if we have massive green energy drives.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

big energy independence drive

This is a great weasel word. "Energy independence." Like we're going to hook cables up to George Washington and run on carbon-neutral Freedom Juice.™

"Energy independence" still means using fossil fuels. Just maybe different ones like natural gas instead of coal. There's less emissions, sure, but it's not anything like what Carter envisioned: Solar power stations in LEO, beaming gigawatts of carbon neutral power down from space.

[–] Murais@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago

You're selling Earth blood that makes the sky melt.

That's pretty fucking evil.

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

“We’re not selling an evil product, we’re just running a multibillion dollar cartel in an evil way. That’s totally different.”

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Plastic in the oceans, Co2 and heavy metals in the air, war, and above all: Wednesday morning traffic (worst day where I am due to WFH rules still being decently widespread).

Looks like someone needs a bullet.

[–] Guru_Insights99@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago

Hello users of Lemmy 👋 I'm a Brand Ambassador of Chevron corporate and would like to clear up this misunderstanding about our brand. Chevron provides oil, diesel and hot gas to millions of people worldwide. Although our brand has had setbacks, the utility we bring to millions of users every day has been overwhelmingly positive.

I hope this clears up any tensions and we hope to continue providing quality products to our clients in the future. Cheers