Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer appear happy to pursue growth at any cost – including the destruction of the planet

  • HumanPenguin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    If we never drill for it. Or allow anyone else. Studies will run out eventually.

    It is in no way a solution. But the simple fact is adding new wells extends the time corperations and governments can delay implementing alternatives. Increasing the total amount of harm done to the enviroment.

    It is not a zero sum game. Providing our own dose not mean the world burns the same amount t it means we burn for longer with less urgency to alternative options and inferstructure.

    I mean honestly I am 54 years old. I learned about climate change in school in 1982. It was known proven science back that far. Esso/Exxon was the company that discovered and prooved it was man made back in the early 70s. They then decided to invest billions in climate change denial. Internally selling ideas like the one you are sharing.

    These ideas exist for one reason. To allow oil companies to extract every fucking penny they can out of oil. Before we stop them. Its fucking disgusting that they have not been jailed.

    • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it was in my power, I would certainly jail the CEOs and nationalise the oil companies, so I’m with you there.

      However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster.

      • HumanPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster

        I agree. But many don’t. Its def up for debate.

        But that is in no way justification for new dilling. All drilling new fields dose is give excuses to delay those alternatives. We are not really waiting for new tech to solve this problem. The tech we have today is able to do it. What we need it the fiscal and societal motivation to move away from oil. More oil will just motivate those currently making money from it to slow down that investment more.

        We need to invest in major inferstructure uprated to our electrical grid. Copy ideas like Norway new overhead power for trucking. (Think electric trams but using roads and semi trucks. Then using battery for last mile transport etc. While its only a trial being built atm. It is the type of thinking we need. And better electrical grids are the first steps.

        Unfortunately giving current oil interests longer is not in anyway the solution. As a society we need to accept the use is going to stop. So pull our freaking socks up and get on with it. We don’t need to wait for new tech. We need to implement the best of the current tech and stop finding excuses.

        • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s interesting you cite Norway because as I said elsewhere in this thread, they are a major oil producer and exporter who are also committed to green infrastructure. That’s the exact approach I think we should take!

          You are right that we have a lot of encouraging tech but deploying that takes time and money, and often an ‘upfront’ increase in carbon emissions. Other tech looks good but hasn’t been proven to scale up or is still in the trial stage (as you akcnolwedge).

          As I said, I agree with you that Norway is the model to follow; but they produce a lot of oil.