Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#21

Post by wahnfrieden »

tw04 wrote: post #7

> as investors focused on near-term returns rather than the energy transition. If the justification for burning the earth to the ground continues to be “investors focused on short term returns” then governments need to start telling companies like BP they are legally and financially responsible for the effects those policies have on insurance rates and everything else. At some point if they can’t do the right thing b…

Govts are in on the spoils of it. There’s no reason for govts to attain power over people and use it to lose their own power by destroying their economy.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#22

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

schiffern wrote: post #10
imglorp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

> we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.

Sometimes it's pretty visible. Some slime molds (dictyostelids) form multicellular bodies when food is scarce and they have to hunt, and then go back to single-celled life when conditions are more favorable.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#24

Post by saintfire »

schiffern wrote: post #10
imglorp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

> we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.

Single celled organisms do it all the time, on a local scale.

If you fill a jar with some yeast and sugar water, they'll feast and multiply at an accelerating pace until they've turned their environment toxic.

Painfully analagous to humans.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#25

Post by bryanlarsen »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #8

It's depressing to see companies moving back towards a carbon-burning future. It seemed like electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar power advancement was finally starting to kill the market for ICE engines and 'dirty' thermal power. Between reversions like this, RTO mandates, and global conflicts that seem to include blowing up oil refineries it seems like there's absolutely no hope or interest from any maj…

It's the standard cycle of progress. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". (misattributed to Gandhi).

Moving from one stage to the next is not guaranteed, but EV's, battery & solar and definitely well past the first two stages. I'd argue that solar might even be in column 4 -- China installed 100 GW of it in the first six months of 2024, and the rest of the world a similar amount.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#26

Post by bamboozled »

jimbob45 wrote: post #19
linkjuice4all wrote: post #8

It's depressing to see companies moving back towards a carbon-burning future. It seemed like electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar power advancement was finally starting to kill the market for ICE engines and 'dirty' thermal power. Between reversions like this, RTO mandates, and global conflicts that seem to include blowing up oil refineries it seems like there's absolutely no hope or interest from any maj…

Does it not seem like electric vehicles will eventually swallow the world? It feels like it's 1900 and you're fighting tooth-and-nail to combat horse maltreatment while the rest of the world is surging toward a car-laden future. Would it not make more sense to simply focus efforts on EV adoption?

I'm not trying to blame this on "Elon" but that guy basically kicked off the revolution and is kind of destroying it. His cult following, toxic views and enthusiasm for conspiracies are starting to make EV ownership something for "weirdos" at a time when owning an EV was already contentious. At least in the US.

There was a time when I dreamed of owning a Tesla, there is absolutely no way I'd drive one now.

I think China is going to steam ahead towards Solar, Nuclear and EVs, so maybe there is hope there!

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#27

Post by buzzy_hacker »

imglorp wrote: post #6
schiffern wrote: post #4

Pioneering systems theorist Donella Meadows makes a highly salient point. The problem with BP isn't because there are "bad people" at the top, and the solution isn't to replace them with "good people." The problem is that the decision-makers are constrained to act a certain way . If they made different decisions then.... those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, e…

That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

> subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally

This is misleading. See https://www.slowboring.com/i/145942190/the-case-of-the-myste...

> The vast majority of the “subsidies” are “implicit subsidies,” which include “undercharging for environmental costs.” In other words, they are characterizing governments’ failure to impose a carbon tax as a “subsidy” for fossil fuel use.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#28

Post by Spooky23 »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #8

It's depressing to see companies moving back towards a carbon-burning future. It seemed like electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar power advancement was finally starting to kill the market for ICE engines and 'dirty' thermal power. Between reversions like this, RTO mandates, and global conflicts that seem to include blowing up oil refineries it seems like there's absolutely no hope or interest from any maj…

Nothing changed. We’re literally in an auto market flooded with EVs. Solar is a ROI positive investment that is gobbling up farmland in a problematic way.

If you’re a geek, you probably got hyped up by Elon when he was saving the world with electric cars. Now that he’s regressed to his effort to offer himself for impregnation services to repopulate and installing fascist dictatorships, the electric car stuff has gone by the wayside.

Cults of personality usually end up toxic.

Re: BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

#29

Post by taeric »

I'm rather torn on the discourse on this. I can understand disappointment that people are adjusting down on goals. What I don't understand is that this seems rather removed from outcome measures.

Specifically, in this context, they are still reducing output. Just not as aggressively. Do we have reporting on what this means in real impact terms? Last reporting I have seen, the majority of carbon emissions are from locations that we aren't governing. Such that this is akin to yelling at people for not eating all of their food, because someone somewhere is starving.

Post reply on HN