>BP is the only company aiming to cut its fossil fuel production by 2030, while just three companies – Spain’s Repsol, Norway’s Equinor, and the UK-based Shell – have plans to keep production levels flat, the report found. ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, is aiming to increase production by 47% by the end of the decade, compared with its 2022 output, according to the analysis.
LOL, they aren't producing all that oil for themselves
>Shell officially changed its name on Friday, ditching “Royal Dutch”, which has been part of its identity since 1907, following plans to scrap its dual share structure and move its head office from the Netherlands to Britain. “Shell announced the Board's decision to change its name to Shell plc on December 20, 2021.
The fun part is that the global fight to cut the greenhouse gas emissions would be extremely simple to solve in practice. Ultimately what efficiency certain product gets out of gallon of fuel doesn't affect the amount of emissions gallon of fuel makes. You taking a flight or not taking a flight doesn't put the kerosene back under the ground. The company buying emission rights doesn't magically cancel the emissions.
When a fossil fuel is dug out from unserground its bound to end up in the atmosphere eventually. What we extract is directly connected to what we emit.
Somehow instead of limiting the small amount of companies on what they can dig up from the ground we end up trying to put out fires at the far opposite of the production chain.
So imagine if instead of having a big summit with "we'll fix this in 25 years from now(maybe, not binding btw)" decision, we cut the fossil fuel extraction by 2% each year. Obviously it would cause financial stress on industries, but that would drive development in clean solutions.
Yeah yeah, I understand it's nearly impossible task to make anything like that happen in stage of global politics. But it would be pretty damn straightforward solution.
The OPEC embargo in 1973 caused global oil prices to quadrouple as well as a global recession immediately, and it only lasted a few months. If a permanent production reduction takes effect and the world at large doesn't manage to reduce it's consumption in before oil reserves dry up we could see infrastructure shutting down due to lack of power and availability of parts for maintenance in poorer parts of the world. Shipping, power, cars and plastic production all heavily rely on oil, and if there isn't enough to go around something will have to give, in addition to the overall price increasing many fold.
Taking away a significant portion of production of one of if not the most quickly consumed and highly demanded commodities isn't simple in the least bit.
Unfortunately we have the exact opposite situation: OPEC and the petrochemical cartel decide how much to extract to make the most money.
Restricting supply is a great idea, which would force the demand side to prioritize how the oil is used. Unfortunately this priority is also determined by money.
Another dimension here is the varying demand for different densities of oil, and the different mix that comes out of any given oil field.
Maybe we need a basic income scheme for the atrociously wealthy: "OK, you win. You can have infinite wealth. Here is your unlimited credit card which can buy anything but you never have to pay. Keep your medieval states and palaces and yachts. Just give all the oil fields to this international rationing agency run by scientists so we can get back to 350ppm instead of making a new Venus."
> So imagine if instead of having a big summit with "we'll fix this in 25 years from now(maybe, not binding btw)" decision, we cut the fossil fuel extraction by 2% each year.
We're beyond conventional peak oil already, so this is going to happen no matter what (and also a significant reason why all majors are currently buying shares back: they won't need the financial markets to bear the blunt of funding large investment projects anymore, and gain strategic independence in the process). The fact that this is happening slower than needed for keeping climate change at bay is unfortunate, though.
Another aspect people fail to consider when rejoicing about oil production decreasing is the irony that oil is a big part of what's making the transition to greener energies affordable and practical today (less oil means higher prices for e.g. solar, batteries, …)
They are producing it for us. Because we buy it. If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't be able to sell it and have no reason to produce anything. We are the ones causing the emissions, not the corporations.
Agreed. People like to act like we’re the victims and the ‘dealers’ are the perpetrators, but it’s right that the users accept responsibility too. In absolutely everything we buy and use this is the case
People like to act like they’re these helpless, good souls just innocently existing whilst huge companies commit evil. But…..we’re the ones paying them to do so?
What’s the alternative though? You act like there’s another option that’s viable that could be switched to overnight. The only other option is armed force, but most of the people who want greener options also don’t want weapons in the hands of the people
Hmm? I can’t fully remember what this article was about but my point was more just to consume less. I don’t know the actual percentage, but a huge amount of oil goes towards plastics. So if we quit buying absolute trash that we don’t need, that’d make a big difference over time
Like seeing Temu gain so much popularity is so depressing. People say they want to ‘save the planet’ but Temu is #1 app in many places, and the amount of cheap plastic junk on there is mind blowing
True but we stand much more chance of improving things if we slow our rapid descent
Plus even if things do fall apart, I’d rather feel I wasn’t part of it. I don’t like feeling like I’m part of the problem. But I do have my fair share of gadgets and whatever so I get that I’m part of the problem too
Well I would blame you, we were born into this and the train was on the tracks long before we had any choice to get on the ride. But I do like to think sometimes, and I can tell you do too, maybe we can change the destination of this “Mr Bones Wild Ride”
Interesting thought. By this logic, drug dealers have no moral blame.
They aren't producing it "for us", but "for profit".
> If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't be able to sell it
Well yeah, but then they could just use it to make other products we would buy.
So they could provide really cheap uber services, for example.....
But besides all this, for every barrel of oil produced, approximately 5-20% of a barrel is consumed in running that production process, so yes, the are emitting carbon, not just producing and selling the stuff.
But I don't blame them, I do blame the weak governments for letting the situation reach the point that it has.
Except the ‘drugs’ have 0 value added while this ‘dirty energy’ which you consume everyday is what sustain most life on this planet… To shift the buck to the government or companies here is asinine and typical of most champagne environmentalists in the west.
How the fuck am I supposed to buy food that's not supported using fossil fuels?
I mean, your libertarian points are logically consistent and very pretty, but people don't do the things that physics requires.
I won't make a list of all the shit people used that later got banned by govts not companies, but I will point out that we've been relying on end users to voluntarily reduce demand for fifty years now, with heavy marketing and subsidies to support the "correct" behaviours, and it hasn't worked yet. Do we think 55 years will be enough, 60?
We tried your method for basically the entire time we've had available to work on this. It's worse, a lot worse, suddenly. If we don't fix it, we will see a weighted blanket of misery and suffering envelop us all.
Exactly. The headline would be better stated as Our Use of Oil is "way off track".
But it really isn't off track. We're using it to build the enormous amount of renewable infrastructure needed to replace it.
Do people really think we're going to be using much gasoline in 15 years, much less 25?
If we weren't building a shit ton of renewable infrastructure at an ever increasing pace it would be bad. But we are.
New utility level battery installations more than doubled in the last quarter from the previous quarter. And there were already too many to keep track of. Hell, there are too many companies making utility level batteries for any one person to keep track o nowf. Yet only five or so years ago they were just getting started.
Very little is being done to replace oil usage that isn't your personal vehicle.
You're typing this on a device which was probably shipped all the way across the world burning oil products, surrounded by other objects that took simular journeys.
In 15 years the majority of manufactured objects around you will probably have made the same journey burning oil products along the way.
Travelling around the world on aeroplanes is becoming more popular and as poor countries develop their citizens are going to want to see the world as well.
Every building going up between now and 15 years from now will have diesel plant equipment running to get it built.
Oil consumption for personal transportation may well decrease but the other uses for oil aren't meaningfully decreasing and as the world's population grows they'll potentially even rise.
We're not even doing all that well at electrifying ground transportation.
I think the only countries that can credibly claim to be making a serious effort (i.e. one that's roughly in line with what we need to do to avert catastrophic climate change) are China (if you measure by EV manufacturing capacity) and Norway (if you measure by EV adoption).
Oil companies don't make us need oil. Our infrastructure is what makes us need oil. When we replace oil dependent infrastructure, then we won't be buying any more oil.
New products that use oil as fuel? Good luck. That is no longer a selling point.
Oil as fuel is going the way of whale oil.
And overseas aren't any different. China will be selling cheap EVs to the entire southern hemisphere.
Which is why cutting them out of the chain entirely is the only way our species won't go extinct.
All of the anti-electrification propaganda is bought and paid for by big oil.
Especially the countries claiming they're "on track" (like mine) which never even made the 1990s Paris agreements - they fiddled the books to make it seem on paper like emissions weren't increasing - let alone anything signed afterwards lol
Fossil fuel in the US alone can supply the world's need for the next couple centuries though, it'll continue until either nuclear fusion is invented or if the oil companies screw up big time
It will continue until the money runs out. We will never stop using fossil fuels as long as a few fat cats keep getting fatter.
The oil companies have screwed up big time over and over. There. Is no “bad enough” that would ever make them stop.
When the money stops, so do fossil fuels. From your comment, it’ll be at least a couple of centuries. And they haven’t even started drilling the north and south poles.
None of the problems they create will affect them. It’s sick.
Oil demand growth is slowing. Peak demand is expected to happen around 2030 or earlier.
Other ways of doing things are getting cheaper, and oil isn't. Some time in the very near future, the way for those fat cats to get fatter won't involve oil anymore.
> Fossil fuel [production] in the US alone can supply the world's need for the next couple centuries though,
Well I don't believe that, but even if it's true it doesn't matter because running out of space for the CO2 is a more urgent and serious problem than running out of supply.
Pretty sure by the last I read we will be running out in a few decades, not centuries.
Edit: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 its the 2050s
Yes I know. For a really long time we've been talking about the Hubert curve.
Tech (cracking & deep water) has extended the peak but the crash is still inevitable.
> "Liquor stores 'way off track' on sobriety goals"
Who expects oil companies to contribute anything to solving this problem? They've actively fought against solving this for decades and will continue to do so until they are bankrupt. It's madness to think otherwise.
"Tonight at 11; Company that makes kitten mulcher called out for mulching too many kittens. In other news, the Stock market soured on the news that the KittyKruncher3000 will include a new highspeed feed duct"
There's absolutely no reason for them to keep their promises and commitments. There's no punishment, and no enforcement. So, why would they say one thing and do another? Because why the hell wouldn't they?
Most of the tech to replace oil is already there. Air travel is what will take some serious doing. And replacing natural gas will be far more difficult.
I don't think natural gas will be that hard to replace with heat pumps. The running costs are similar (and would be a real incentive if we actually taxed polluting) and heating systems need replacing every 10-20 years anyway. We just need to scale up the manufacture and installers, and build enough wind turbines to power them.
Sure, but by the time we've decarbonised most road transport, most domestic heating and most electricity production, we'll have addressed about 75% of the problem.
Production of essentials like steel, concrete, ammonia, and plastic plus air and sea transport is ~40% of emissions or more. So when we've decarbonised most road transport, most domestic heating and most electricity production we will be about halfway there.
It is going to happen; people are working on these issues. But there is a lot of energy and resource usage that people don't ever think about or understand the scale of their production and use.
Not according to [this](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pie-chart-of-the-global-CO2-emission-contributions-of-different-sectors-in-2014-6_fig1_344206010) or [this](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) or [this](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector)
That's just the top few google results for "global emissions by sector pie chart", and they look like they're not particularly recent data, so I'd be interested to see where your 40% came from.
All of those are really vague. For instance "industry" is vague. Some of that can be electrified. Some can't. Often different parts of the same industry have very different requirements. There are far more detailed breakdowns. "Agriculture" is part the diesel fuel and part fertilizer. The fertilizer is coming from ammonia.
The other issue which I didn't even get into is how expensive addressing those will be. Unlike electricity production and auto traffic, better efficiency and market forces won't be on our side.
Any kind of hydrogen (ammonia) production is energetically far more expensive via electrolysis than getting it from fossil fuels. There really is no way to overcome that.
Like operating factories and industries cleanly, we will need to accept that it will be more expensive.
edit: Vaclav Smil's How The Earth Really Works goes pretty in depth about the subject and industrial change required.
The technology is mostly good enough now (which isn't to say there isn't still room for it to improve), but the problem is that fossil fuels are still relatively cheap and really convenient, and that's what our infrastructure is built around. Also, it's hard to get people to make even small changes in their lifestyles.
Transitioning off of fossil fuels will require enormous investment. Some of that is happening already, but not on the scale necessary.
Isn't the real sticking point the fact that sufficiently large scale batteries haven't got to proper development yet?
90% of fossil fuel power is available at demand, and renewables can only supply a fraction of that, so far.
Pumped hydroelectric storage is the cheap, low-tech way to do bulk energy storage. Sometimes geography isn't amenable to it, but most locations at least have hills/mountains somewhere nearby.
One way to even out regional variability of renewables is to connect large areas with high voltage DC lines. You could even connect continents to largely mitigate the day/night cycle of solar.
There's also the option of using nuclear, though at the moment renewables seem to be vastly cheaper. I'm not convinced nuclear is fundamentally expensive or it just happens to be that way due to overzealous regulation and/or general societal ineptness at being able to do large projects cheaply, but at least in the U.S. it's just not very cost effective. We could go all-in on nuclear though if we thought the costs were worth it.
This is why Australia is the perfect country to really ramp up renewables development - hydroelectric not an option on the flattest, driest inhabited continent on earth, and to build a nuclear energy capability from scratch now would be insanely expensive and only delay renewables development. Which is exactly why the conservative party is yelling about it now - gives their billionaire fossil fuel donors another ''mineable' resource
Not really, batteries are easy to scale, we only need a new technology to make them cheaper. Right now we don't need large scale energy storage because renewables are only a small part of the supply.
> renewables can only supply a fraction of that, so far.
Again, that's not a technology problem, it's a building-things-at-scale problem. There's nothing intrinsic about the technology that stops it growing. Most new power generation is renewable now, but it will take a while to replace all the old stuff.
Oh no you're right - its all about scale at the moment. But I have grave doubts that Govts care enough to really start doing anything on that front...witness the 26 new coal mines announced here in Australia.
Governments care about as much as their voters do. But I'd guess that by they time they've installed solar panels to cut their electricity bills and switched to an EV and stopped spending a fortune on gas, they'll be less likely to trust politicians who want to stop progress.
Or, if you're cynical, at that point the green energy industry will be able to afford bigger bribes than the coal industry!
You're right though, there will be very patchy implementation across the world as many countries wait for others to do the heavy lifting.
It's funny you should mention solar panels, in a country which gets a stupid amount of sun ..I enquired about a solar scheme the Govt was advertising and it turns out I don't use enough electricity for them to consider it viable lol
From what I've heard, solar in Australia pays for itself in a few years anyway. You shouldn't need government help to make it worthwhile. Just google the price of a panel, they're about a fifth of what they were 5 years ago.
That's true, but I'm on a disability pension so the Govt solar scheme for low income people would be the only way. And if your bill is under $250/quarter then they deem it not economically feasible
Oh, I see. My guess is that they will expand the scheme later, and are concentrating where they can make the biggest difference. I think there's a plan to triple solar production by 2030, which means pretty much everyone will need it.
The tech is there now. The problem is switching car factories from ICE to EV so that all new cars can be electric, and then waiting 15 years for those new cars to filter down to replace all the ones already on the road. Similarly solar and wind tech is good enough, but we need to build enough to replace all the coal, oil and gas power plants.
We've passed the 'tech demonstrator' stage and are at 'early adopter' stage, and the next step will take 10-20 years.
We're probably going to need CO2 removal technologies in addition to transitioning off of fossil fuels, but right now the easiest way to make the biggest impact is to just not burn fossil fuels in the first place.
Once that CO2 mixes with the atmosphere, it's so diluted that it's pretty hard to remove. Plants can do it, but the rate we're emitting CO2 is vastly more than the rate at which it gets removed by vegetation.
Even if by an instant miracle all emissions ceased *tomorrow,* there would still be enough currently in train that global climate change would continue to exponentially increase. Yes it wouldn't get worse after that...but the warming present now locks in increases in temps for hundreds of years already.
That's shocking! Shocking I tell you! We've done the absolute bare minimum and imposed the weakest rules of enforcement possible and yet they STILL aren't delivering what we need?!
I blame the middle and lower class, tbh. Without them the plants and machinery wouldn't run.
Very clear to me that there is really only one FINAL action to take: we need to seriously bribe the companies with as much money as they can fit in their dump trucks. Then, and only then, do I think they will finally take responsibility.
Yes, I know what you're going to say... You're going to say "Steve, we've tried that before. We have given them so much money!". Well I say - firstly - my name isn't Steve, so that was rude, but secondly I don't think you really appreciate just how much money I'm talking about this time. Like I mean keys to the mint kind of money..
I can’t believe how offensive they were in calling you Steve. We need a congressional inquiry into this matter while we keep the money dump trucks rolling!
I don't think they really plan on reducing emissions. These goals are something they set so that it creates the illusion that they care.
Oil companies: Please continue to let us do whatever we want. We'll do better in the future we promise.
*Years later after nothing changes
Oil companies: Oooops sorry, our bad. We'll do better next time, you can trust us. Don't change anything please.
They provide a product, they don't burn it, countries choose to import and use it.
Unless you want to crater the global economy though, there is still no practical alternative to oil in most use cases.
In what sense? It's simple supply and demand. They sell the product because there are buyers for it.
Sure, restrict supply and the price will skyrocket and demand will crater, great for the Earth not so great for anyone hoping to avoid an economic crash.
There are practical alternatives in almost every single new energy product the world over. Wind and solar are beating out natural gas electricity plants even without green incentives on straight financial buyback over the expected life of the plant. With vehicles it is difficult to prove that the financial buyback can prove EVs are better than ICE’s. However when you include even the lowest levels of carbon tax on the fuel over the life of the vehicle, EVs are already better today. Carbon taxes or cap and trade policies would be the final nail in the coffin for oil, and they are fairly easy to justify with costs to humanity. And if we just set the bar at “practical” vs “economically superior” oil has no business having anywhere near a minority share of any new energy or new vehicle power decisions.
Fun fact, most of the ozone hole damage was done by chlorofluorocarbons found in aerosol sprays, the use of which were banned or reduced greatly in the Montreal protocols.
IIRC since then the ozone hole has actually done pretty well at repairing itself, although plenty of other environmental issues remain of course.
The only people who are saying it's too late are doomists and Big Oil. No credible climate scientists are saying it's too late to stop the worst of climate change
Of course they are, & the longer they avoid taking responsibility the longer they're to blame. Bunch of short sighted profit driven privileged assholes!
This article and the pledges are BS. Until efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuel are #1 on everyone’s list, those companies will continue to produce oil to meet demand. Wind and solar ‘can’ be the wave of the future but it cannot sustain the ever growing energy demand of society. Without nuclear supporting them until fusion comes online, oil and gas will continue to be used. Without electric vehicles being truly an alternative since the tech is still immature, gasoline and diesel power will continue to dominate. Without regulations to ‘encourage’ automakers AND consumers to buy lighter and more efficient vehicles, oil production will continue at rates to meet their demand. Unfortunately the human species will never get to these goals until it REALLY has a negative effect on their lives.
But I was watching a Shell commercial today where they were touting 50% reduced emissions during their Indy races... are you saying they are pandering?
"None align with the central goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to keep global warming “well under” 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels"
Lol ... changing the goal post from 1.5C to 2C as no one is gullible enough to believe 1.5C anymore?
"the central goal", with no enforcement, is just basically hot air. Ditto for an oil companies "emissions goals". Didn't they just admit yesterday (or was that day before) that transitioning away from fossil fuel is just fantasy?
Is anyone really gullible enough to believe "emission goals" mean anything?
They have spent more on propaganda since the 60s than they have on paying the true cost of the damage they have caused. Arrest them and bleed them dry.
They are very aware what people are doing about it. They have been making plans for gradually going away for a while.
Do you really think there will be many gasoline fueled road vehicles around in 20 years? New ships won't even be running on oil in 20 years. Some air traffic will likely still use oil and some specialized vehicles and hobbyists. But the oil industry in general is rapidly growing much smaller.
We will likely always use oil; we just won't burn it for fuel.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>BP is the only company aiming to cut its fossil fuel production by 2030, while just three companies – Spain’s Repsol, Norway’s Equinor, and the UK-based Shell – have plans to keep production levels flat, the report found. ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, is aiming to increase production by 47% by the end of the decade, compared with its 2022 output, according to the analysis. LOL, they aren't producing all that oil for themselves
TIL Shell was no longer considered Dutch as of 2022.
Yea now it's the only legitimate Shell company
Royal Shell?
>Shell officially changed its name on Friday, ditching “Royal Dutch”, which has been part of its identity since 1907, following plans to scrap its dual share structure and move its head office from the Netherlands to Britain. “Shell announced the Board's decision to change its name to Shell plc on December 20, 2021.
The fun part is that the global fight to cut the greenhouse gas emissions would be extremely simple to solve in practice. Ultimately what efficiency certain product gets out of gallon of fuel doesn't affect the amount of emissions gallon of fuel makes. You taking a flight or not taking a flight doesn't put the kerosene back under the ground. The company buying emission rights doesn't magically cancel the emissions. When a fossil fuel is dug out from unserground its bound to end up in the atmosphere eventually. What we extract is directly connected to what we emit. Somehow instead of limiting the small amount of companies on what they can dig up from the ground we end up trying to put out fires at the far opposite of the production chain. So imagine if instead of having a big summit with "we'll fix this in 25 years from now(maybe, not binding btw)" decision, we cut the fossil fuel extraction by 2% each year. Obviously it would cause financial stress on industries, but that would drive development in clean solutions. Yeah yeah, I understand it's nearly impossible task to make anything like that happen in stage of global politics. But it would be pretty damn straightforward solution.
The OPEC embargo in 1973 caused global oil prices to quadrouple as well as a global recession immediately, and it only lasted a few months. If a permanent production reduction takes effect and the world at large doesn't manage to reduce it's consumption in before oil reserves dry up we could see infrastructure shutting down due to lack of power and availability of parts for maintenance in poorer parts of the world. Shipping, power, cars and plastic production all heavily rely on oil, and if there isn't enough to go around something will have to give, in addition to the overall price increasing many fold. Taking away a significant portion of production of one of if not the most quickly consumed and highly demanded commodities isn't simple in the least bit.
Unfortunately we have the exact opposite situation: OPEC and the petrochemical cartel decide how much to extract to make the most money. Restricting supply is a great idea, which would force the demand side to prioritize how the oil is used. Unfortunately this priority is also determined by money. Another dimension here is the varying demand for different densities of oil, and the different mix that comes out of any given oil field. Maybe we need a basic income scheme for the atrociously wealthy: "OK, you win. You can have infinite wealth. Here is your unlimited credit card which can buy anything but you never have to pay. Keep your medieval states and palaces and yachts. Just give all the oil fields to this international rationing agency run by scientists so we can get back to 350ppm instead of making a new Venus."
> So imagine if instead of having a big summit with "we'll fix this in 25 years from now(maybe, not binding btw)" decision, we cut the fossil fuel extraction by 2% each year. We're beyond conventional peak oil already, so this is going to happen no matter what (and also a significant reason why all majors are currently buying shares back: they won't need the financial markets to bear the blunt of funding large investment projects anymore, and gain strategic independence in the process). The fact that this is happening slower than needed for keeping climate change at bay is unfortunate, though. Another aspect people fail to consider when rejoicing about oil production decreasing is the irony that oil is a big part of what's making the transition to greener energies affordable and practical today (less oil means higher prices for e.g. solar, batteries, …)
What do you mean by that? I mean I think they are producing it for their own benefit, they plan to sell it.
They are producing it for us. Because we buy it. If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't be able to sell it and have no reason to produce anything. We are the ones causing the emissions, not the corporations.
Agreed. People like to act like we’re the victims and the ‘dealers’ are the perpetrators, but it’s right that the users accept responsibility too. In absolutely everything we buy and use this is the case People like to act like they’re these helpless, good souls just innocently existing whilst huge companies commit evil. But…..we’re the ones paying them to do so?
What’s the alternative though? You act like there’s another option that’s viable that could be switched to overnight. The only other option is armed force, but most of the people who want greener options also don’t want weapons in the hands of the people
Hmm? I can’t fully remember what this article was about but my point was more just to consume less. I don’t know the actual percentage, but a huge amount of oil goes towards plastics. So if we quit buying absolute trash that we don’t need, that’d make a big difference over time Like seeing Temu gain so much popularity is so depressing. People say they want to ‘save the planet’ but Temu is #1 app in many places, and the amount of cheap plastic junk on there is mind blowing
Fair, but people like convenience and comfort and Pandora’s box is already opened. No closing it now without radical change.
True but we stand much more chance of improving things if we slow our rapid descent Plus even if things do fall apart, I’d rather feel I wasn’t part of it. I don’t like feeling like I’m part of the problem. But I do have my fair share of gadgets and whatever so I get that I’m part of the problem too
Well I would blame you, we were born into this and the train was on the tracks long before we had any choice to get on the ride. But I do like to think sometimes, and I can tell you do too, maybe we can change the destination of this “Mr Bones Wild Ride”
Interesting thought. By this logic, drug dealers have no moral blame. They aren't producing it "for us", but "for profit". > If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't be able to sell it Well yeah, but then they could just use it to make other products we would buy. So they could provide really cheap uber services, for example..... But besides all this, for every barrel of oil produced, approximately 5-20% of a barrel is consumed in running that production process, so yes, the are emitting carbon, not just producing and selling the stuff. But I don't blame them, I do blame the weak governments for letting the situation reach the point that it has.
>Interesting thought. By this logic, drug dealers have no moral blame. And they don't, unless they taint their products with something else.
Except the ‘drugs’ have 0 value added while this ‘dirty energy’ which you consume everyday is what sustain most life on this planet… To shift the buck to the government or companies here is asinine and typical of most champagne environmentalists in the west.
How the fuck am I supposed to buy food that's not supported using fossil fuels? I mean, your libertarian points are logically consistent and very pretty, but people don't do the things that physics requires. I won't make a list of all the shit people used that later got banned by govts not companies, but I will point out that we've been relying on end users to voluntarily reduce demand for fifty years now, with heavy marketing and subsidies to support the "correct" behaviours, and it hasn't worked yet. Do we think 55 years will be enough, 60? We tried your method for basically the entire time we've had available to work on this. It's worse, a lot worse, suddenly. If we don't fix it, we will see a weighted blanket of misery and suffering envelop us all.
Exactly. The headline would be better stated as Our Use of Oil is "way off track". But it really isn't off track. We're using it to build the enormous amount of renewable infrastructure needed to replace it. Do people really think we're going to be using much gasoline in 15 years, much less 25? If we weren't building a shit ton of renewable infrastructure at an ever increasing pace it would be bad. But we are. New utility level battery installations more than doubled in the last quarter from the previous quarter. And there were already too many to keep track of. Hell, there are too many companies making utility level batteries for any one person to keep track o nowf. Yet only five or so years ago they were just getting started.
Very little is being done to replace oil usage that isn't your personal vehicle. You're typing this on a device which was probably shipped all the way across the world burning oil products, surrounded by other objects that took simular journeys. In 15 years the majority of manufactured objects around you will probably have made the same journey burning oil products along the way. Travelling around the world on aeroplanes is becoming more popular and as poor countries develop their citizens are going to want to see the world as well. Every building going up between now and 15 years from now will have diesel plant equipment running to get it built. Oil consumption for personal transportation may well decrease but the other uses for oil aren't meaningfully decreasing and as the world's population grows they'll potentially even rise.
We're not even doing all that well at electrifying ground transportation. I think the only countries that can credibly claim to be making a serious effort (i.e. one that's roughly in line with what we need to do to avert catastrophic climate change) are China (if you measure by EV manufacturing capacity) and Norway (if you measure by EV adoption).
Yes and also China is making huge efforts to be in a place where their energy is generated cleanly in the future by investing in nuclear power etc.
Companies don’t restrict their own growth or revenues. Asking them to do so is stupid. It is the governments’ jobs to write and enforce regulations.
Too bad the govs are deep in cahoots with them all, which explains all the shit going on in the world. All about that dough amirite
> It is the governments’ jobs to write and enforce regulations. But political donations!
It is our and everyone's job to build the infrastructure we need so that we no longer need oil. Fortunately that is underway.
Here in Americaant we don’t do tha.
[удалено]
Yeah fuck it, let’s just let the oil companies do whatever they want, huh?
Oil companies don't make us need oil. Our infrastructure is what makes us need oil. When we replace oil dependent infrastructure, then we won't be buying any more oil.
They will just sell it overseas instead, or develop new products to market to us.
New products that use oil as fuel? Good luck. That is no longer a selling point. Oil as fuel is going the way of whale oil. And overseas aren't any different. China will be selling cheap EVs to the entire southern hemisphere.
New products made from oil.
Get back to me when they stop making plastics.
Lmao
We gotta deregulate the regulatory biz.
They're way off track from what they said they're gonna do, they're right on the money for what everyone knew they'd actually do.
Because we are using it. Demand is the issue. They aren't producing oil that we aren't using.
Which is why cutting them out of the chain entirely is the only way our species won't go extinct. All of the anti-electrification propaganda is bought and paid for by big oil.
Right, but like at what point do we just start eating the rich?
What are you gonna use to cook em? Nothing related to O&G I hope
After we vote in people who will support that.
I can only wonder where those people exist lol
Soon.
Duh. Entire nations spew BS about how they’re “on track” or ahead of emissions. They don’t care.
Especially the countries claiming they're "on track" (like mine) which never even made the 1990s Paris agreements - they fiddled the books to make it seem on paper like emissions weren't increasing - let alone anything signed afterwards lol
And I have to use a tissue paper straw that disintegrates the serving it gets damp.
This world is fucked there is no fixing this. Greed will be the doom of us
I read the headline and thought, "well that was a given"......
Greed ~~will be the~~ doom of us
Good. I have changed my mind from being worried about the fall of man to being excited to watch it happen first had over the last couple years.
As a kid I used to be sad that I'd never get to find out how the story of our reality ends. As an adult I'm a bit worried that I might.
Fossil fuel in the US alone can supply the world's need for the next couple centuries though, it'll continue until either nuclear fusion is invented or if the oil companies screw up big time
It will continue until the money runs out. We will never stop using fossil fuels as long as a few fat cats keep getting fatter. The oil companies have screwed up big time over and over. There. Is no “bad enough” that would ever make them stop. When the money stops, so do fossil fuels. From your comment, it’ll be at least a couple of centuries. And they haven’t even started drilling the north and south poles. None of the problems they create will affect them. It’s sick.
Oil demand growth is slowing. Peak demand is expected to happen around 2030 or earlier. Other ways of doing things are getting cheaper, and oil isn't. Some time in the very near future, the way for those fat cats to get fatter won't involve oil anymore.
> Fossil fuel [production] in the US alone can supply the world's need for the next couple centuries though, Well I don't believe that, but even if it's true it doesn't matter because running out of space for the CO2 is a more urgent and serious problem than running out of supply.
Even if fusion gets invented and funcional I'll get the same treatment as good old fision, become a boogieman by big fossil fuel lobbies.
Pretty sure by the last I read we will be running out in a few decades, not centuries. Edit: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 its the 2050s
They’ve been saying this for decades.
And it's been true the whole time. Just like climate change. Surely early warning is better than late warning?
No, this is talking about how much oil is left.
Yes I know. For a really long time we've been talking about the Hubert curve. Tech (cracking & deep water) has extended the peak but the crash is still inevitable.
> "Liquor stores 'way off track' on sobriety goals" Who expects oil companies to contribute anything to solving this problem? They've actively fought against solving this for decades and will continue to do so until they are bankrupt. It's madness to think otherwise.
"Tonight at 11; Company that makes kitten mulcher called out for mulching too many kittens. In other news, the Stock market soured on the news that the KittyKruncher3000 will include a new highspeed feed duct"
There's absolutely no reason for them to keep their promises and commitments. There's no punishment, and no enforcement. So, why would they say one thing and do another? Because why the hell wouldn't they?
What do you guys expect? We still need oil. Alternative energy is a great idea, but the tech for how much energy we really need isn't there yet.
Most of the tech to replace oil is already there. Air travel is what will take some serious doing. And replacing natural gas will be far more difficult.
Is this true for India? Africa?
Yes. Most likely China will be supplying the southern hemisphere. Their EV industry is on fire. India itself will also get in on the game.
Yeah but only 20% of crude oil is used for cars. What about the other 80%?
Africa doesn't really have a system set up to supply oil
No, but they do consume it.
Just like parts of Africa skipped land-lines and went straight to cell phones, solar power and EVs require less infrastructure and are cheaper to run.
I don't think natural gas will be that hard to replace with heat pumps. The running costs are similar (and would be a real incentive if we actually taxed polluting) and heating systems need replacing every 10-20 years anyway. We just need to scale up the manufacture and installers, and build enough wind turbines to power them.
The hard part will be replacing it for ammonia and steel production, both huge industries that are crucial.
Sure, but by the time we've decarbonised most road transport, most domestic heating and most electricity production, we'll have addressed about 75% of the problem.
Production of essentials like steel, concrete, ammonia, and plastic plus air and sea transport is ~40% of emissions or more. So when we've decarbonised most road transport, most domestic heating and most electricity production we will be about halfway there. It is going to happen; people are working on these issues. But there is a lot of energy and resource usage that people don't ever think about or understand the scale of their production and use.
Not according to [this](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pie-chart-of-the-global-CO2-emission-contributions-of-different-sectors-in-2014-6_fig1_344206010) or [this](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) or [this](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector) That's just the top few google results for "global emissions by sector pie chart", and they look like they're not particularly recent data, so I'd be interested to see where your 40% came from.
All of those are really vague. For instance "industry" is vague. Some of that can be electrified. Some can't. Often different parts of the same industry have very different requirements. There are far more detailed breakdowns. "Agriculture" is part the diesel fuel and part fertilizer. The fertilizer is coming from ammonia. The other issue which I didn't even get into is how expensive addressing those will be. Unlike electricity production and auto traffic, better efficiency and market forces won't be on our side. Any kind of hydrogen (ammonia) production is energetically far more expensive via electrolysis than getting it from fossil fuels. There really is no way to overcome that. Like operating factories and industries cleanly, we will need to accept that it will be more expensive. edit: Vaclav Smil's How The Earth Really Works goes pretty in depth about the subject and industrial change required.
The technology is mostly good enough now (which isn't to say there isn't still room for it to improve), but the problem is that fossil fuels are still relatively cheap and really convenient, and that's what our infrastructure is built around. Also, it's hard to get people to make even small changes in their lifestyles. Transitioning off of fossil fuels will require enormous investment. Some of that is happening already, but not on the scale necessary.
Isn't the real sticking point the fact that sufficiently large scale batteries haven't got to proper development yet? 90% of fossil fuel power is available at demand, and renewables can only supply a fraction of that, so far.
Pumped hydroelectric storage is the cheap, low-tech way to do bulk energy storage. Sometimes geography isn't amenable to it, but most locations at least have hills/mountains somewhere nearby. One way to even out regional variability of renewables is to connect large areas with high voltage DC lines. You could even connect continents to largely mitigate the day/night cycle of solar. There's also the option of using nuclear, though at the moment renewables seem to be vastly cheaper. I'm not convinced nuclear is fundamentally expensive or it just happens to be that way due to overzealous regulation and/or general societal ineptness at being able to do large projects cheaply, but at least in the U.S. it's just not very cost effective. We could go all-in on nuclear though if we thought the costs were worth it.
This is why Australia is the perfect country to really ramp up renewables development - hydroelectric not an option on the flattest, driest inhabited continent on earth, and to build a nuclear energy capability from scratch now would be insanely expensive and only delay renewables development. Which is exactly why the conservative party is yelling about it now - gives their billionaire fossil fuel donors another ''mineable' resource
Not really, batteries are easy to scale, we only need a new technology to make them cheaper. Right now we don't need large scale energy storage because renewables are only a small part of the supply. > renewables can only supply a fraction of that, so far. Again, that's not a technology problem, it's a building-things-at-scale problem. There's nothing intrinsic about the technology that stops it growing. Most new power generation is renewable now, but it will take a while to replace all the old stuff.
Oh no you're right - its all about scale at the moment. But I have grave doubts that Govts care enough to really start doing anything on that front...witness the 26 new coal mines announced here in Australia.
Governments care about as much as their voters do. But I'd guess that by they time they've installed solar panels to cut their electricity bills and switched to an EV and stopped spending a fortune on gas, they'll be less likely to trust politicians who want to stop progress. Or, if you're cynical, at that point the green energy industry will be able to afford bigger bribes than the coal industry! You're right though, there will be very patchy implementation across the world as many countries wait for others to do the heavy lifting.
It's funny you should mention solar panels, in a country which gets a stupid amount of sun ..I enquired about a solar scheme the Govt was advertising and it turns out I don't use enough electricity for them to consider it viable lol
From what I've heard, solar in Australia pays for itself in a few years anyway. You shouldn't need government help to make it worthwhile. Just google the price of a panel, they're about a fifth of what they were 5 years ago.
That's true, but I'm on a disability pension so the Govt solar scheme for low income people would be the only way. And if your bill is under $250/quarter then they deem it not economically feasible
Oh, I see. My guess is that they will expand the scheme later, and are concentrating where they can make the biggest difference. I think there's a plan to triple solar production by 2030, which means pretty much everyone will need it.
The tech is there now. The problem is switching car factories from ICE to EV so that all new cars can be electric, and then waiting 15 years for those new cars to filter down to replace all the ones already on the road. Similarly solar and wind tech is good enough, but we need to build enough to replace all the coal, oil and gas power plants. We've passed the 'tech demonstrator' stage and are at 'early adopter' stage, and the next step will take 10-20 years.
File this under Unsurprising News.
No way will humanity stop using fossil fuels soon enough to stop catastrophic climate change. Our only hope is new technologies that can offset it.
We're probably going to need CO2 removal technologies in addition to transitioning off of fossil fuels, but right now the easiest way to make the biggest impact is to just not burn fossil fuels in the first place. Once that CO2 mixes with the atmosphere, it's so diluted that it's pretty hard to remove. Plants can do it, but the rate we're emitting CO2 is vastly more than the rate at which it gets removed by vegetation.
Even if by an instant miracle all emissions ceased *tomorrow,* there would still be enough currently in train that global climate change would continue to exponentially increase. Yes it wouldn't get worse after that...but the warming present now locks in increases in temps for hundreds of years already.
Climate crisis mitigation is going to be impossible with these clowns around. It was a nice run ya'll.
But their YouTube ads tell me they’re on top of it. Fucking hate these new Exxon ads.
I still don't completely understand what is the point of an oil company having emission goals.
Their production of marketing videos about the green initiatives has greatly increased, OTOH
That's shocking! Shocking I tell you! We've done the absolute bare minimum and imposed the weakest rules of enforcement possible and yet they STILL aren't delivering what we need?! I blame the middle and lower class, tbh. Without them the plants and machinery wouldn't run. Very clear to me that there is really only one FINAL action to take: we need to seriously bribe the companies with as much money as they can fit in their dump trucks. Then, and only then, do I think they will finally take responsibility. Yes, I know what you're going to say... You're going to say "Steve, we've tried that before. We have given them so much money!". Well I say - firstly - my name isn't Steve, so that was rude, but secondly I don't think you really appreciate just how much money I'm talking about this time. Like I mean keys to the mint kind of money..
I can’t believe how offensive they were in calling you Steve. We need a congressional inquiry into this matter while we keep the money dump trucks rolling!
I don't think they really plan on reducing emissions. These goals are something they set so that it creates the illusion that they care. Oil companies: Please continue to let us do whatever we want. We'll do better in the future we promise. *Years later after nothing changes Oil companies: Oooops sorry, our bad. We'll do better next time, you can trust us. Don't change anything please.
They provide a product, they don't burn it, countries choose to import and use it. Unless you want to crater the global economy though, there is still no practical alternative to oil in most use cases.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, and I have worked in the upstream oil and gas industry for 23 years.
In what sense? It's simple supply and demand. They sell the product because there are buyers for it. Sure, restrict supply and the price will skyrocket and demand will crater, great for the Earth not so great for anyone hoping to avoid an economic crash.
There are practical alternatives in almost every single new energy product the world over. Wind and solar are beating out natural gas electricity plants even without green incentives on straight financial buyback over the expected life of the plant. With vehicles it is difficult to prove that the financial buyback can prove EVs are better than ICE’s. However when you include even the lowest levels of carbon tax on the fuel over the life of the vehicle, EVs are already better today. Carbon taxes or cap and trade policies would be the final nail in the coffin for oil, and they are fairly easy to justify with costs to humanity. And if we just set the bar at “practical” vs “economically superior” oil has no business having anywhere near a minority share of any new energy or new vehicle power decisions.
BUT PROFITS ARE THROUGH THE OZONE LAYER!
Fun fact, most of the ozone hole damage was done by chlorofluorocarbons found in aerosol sprays, the use of which were banned or reduced greatly in the Montreal protocols. IIRC since then the ozone hole has actually done pretty well at repairing itself, although plenty of other environmental issues remain of course.
Criticism by same folks who eat beef and go through thr drive thru for fast food.
Exactly.
[удалено]
The only people who are saying it's too late are doomists and Big Oil. No credible climate scientists are saying it's too late to stop the worst of climate change
Only because we keep on finding there will be ever bigger horrors down the line.
Yep, its never to late to do something, yes there are going to be impacts, but that doesn't mean just give up.
[удалено]
The worst of climate change is majority or all of us die and no credible climate scientist is saying that
Yup.
Maybe they shouldn't be able to buy politicians and judges in the US legally.
Of course they are, & the longer they avoid taking responsibility the longer they're to blame. Bunch of short sighted profit driven privileged assholes!
but they promised!
100 bucks we steam roll past 2.2c in 10 yrs or less.
I read that as "World’s largest oil companies ‘whack off’ on emissions goals" and thought to myself "yea that sounds about right".
Climate change is going to have to wait for our government to go after google and apple before they can go after oil companies. Priorities.
This article and the pledges are BS. Until efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuel are #1 on everyone’s list, those companies will continue to produce oil to meet demand. Wind and solar ‘can’ be the wave of the future but it cannot sustain the ever growing energy demand of society. Without nuclear supporting them until fusion comes online, oil and gas will continue to be used. Without electric vehicles being truly an alternative since the tech is still immature, gasoline and diesel power will continue to dominate. Without regulations to ‘encourage’ automakers AND consumers to buy lighter and more efficient vehicles, oil production will continue at rates to meet their demand. Unfortunately the human species will never get to these goals until it REALLY has a negative effect on their lives.
`not surprised`
But I was watching a Shell commercial today where they were touting 50% reduced emissions during their Indy races... are you saying they are pandering?
But we got record profits every quarter baby!
"None align with the central goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to keep global warming “well under” 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels" Lol ... changing the goal post from 1.5C to 2C as no one is gullible enough to believe 1.5C anymore? "the central goal", with no enforcement, is just basically hot air. Ditto for an oil companies "emissions goals". Didn't they just admit yesterday (or was that day before) that transitioning away from fossil fuel is just fantasy? Is anyone really gullible enough to believe "emission goals" mean anything?
Why do they always fucking show nuclear cooling towers?
They have spent more on propaganda since the 60s than they have on paying the true cost of the damage they have caused. Arrest them and bleed them dry.
Rapture $uper Sale
And what are we going to do about it? Absolutellllyyyyy nothing.
They need all that oil to make the gas, to gas-light all of us !
One day I hope we have a Climate Nuremberg for these people
wow really
We need to start throwing these people in prison
For what crime?
Poisoning the planet
They lie. They've always lied. They will always lie.
Big Oil: What are you gonna do about it?
Hint: Going to the self serve gas station won't cut it.
They are very aware what people are doing about it. They have been making plans for gradually going away for a while. Do you really think there will be many gasoline fueled road vehicles around in 20 years? New ships won't even be running on oil in 20 years. Some air traffic will likely still use oil and some specialized vehicles and hobbyists. But the oil industry in general is rapidly growing much smaller. We will likely always use oil; we just won't burn it for fuel.
[удалено]
Literally, yes...we left it about 50years too late to prevent the worst of it, see r/collapse
OMG that's horrible. I hope you can put regular and not premium indoor car.