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

41–50 of 90 posts

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

#41

Post by JohnMakin »

jbstack wrote: post #16
fullshark wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarians constantly spouting that CEOs have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders are making the best argument for increased government regulation possible.

A reasonable libertarian however would require that all externalities be paid for (under the principle of doing no harm). If the price per unit of oil includes the cost of all the negative externalities (e.g. selling that unit comes with a requirement to remove the air pollutants and CO2) then it isn't really a problem (at least for the purpose of this discussion) if CEOs have to seek profit for shareholders.

Who is it that decides what these externalities are and who enforces this?

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

#42

Post by gottorf »

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...

> stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally

We need to stop bandying about this $7T figure. 80% of it is "implicit subsidies", meaning made-up numbers based on carbon pricing and environmental impacts and whatnot. It's like saying we implicitly subsidize solar power by not accounting for the environmental impacts of covering up square miles of land under panels, or of the pollution from the production of panels. If you go back far enough, it's like telling the caveman not to light sticks on fire to keep himself warm, because of the carbon emissions that aren't being priced in.

Fossil fuels are, with present-day technology, the best source of energy for humanity to develop and maintain high living standards. It's easy to stop using them if we're OK with dialing back our living standards two hundred years. It will be easy to stop using them at some point in the future when we have abundant, clean, cheap energy from a proliferation of nuclear power, or some battery technology breakthrough that will let us economically harness wind and solar energy. However, currently, it's not easy. Oil and gas is profitable because it makes us all richer, let's not forget that.

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

#43

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

> It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions

It's a people problem requiring people to coordinate their actions for the net good of all people, instead of coordinating their abdication of responsibility for the good of the corporation.

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

#44

Post by passwordoops »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #25
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 simila…

They also added 1 billion tons of coal. Not all of for energy of course, but still

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-...

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

#45

Post by Supermancho »

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?

> Does it not seem like electric vehicles will eventually swallow the world?

I don't believe so. As I understand it, there are not enough rare metals available, with the known battery technologies. I don't think will ever be the production capacity to construct and maintain (replace) electric-based equivalents to the solutions fossil fuels fit. Fossil fuels came to dominance because of a number of maximal equations. eg The energy demand to move goods, on the scale of trains, is impractical. Operating electronics in extreme temperatures, is impractical.

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

#46

Post by david38 »

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #27
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...

> 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.

If I have to pay to clean up your mess to live in a world the way it was before you polluted it, it’s a subsidy

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

#47

Post by stonogo »

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 think EVs are the 80% solution. They're great in cities and in suburbs. If you regularly make longer trips, they're a massive pain in the ass, primarily due to the poor-quality charging infrastructure. There are vast swaths of America where someone is already trucking gasoline and diesel to fuel stations but there's no reliable expectation of charging infrastructure of any kind, much less high-quality charging. It's really frustrating to run into, for instance, trying to drive from Bozeman to Seattle. It's currently fashionable to ignore this problem, but it's one we're going to have to solve.

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

#48

Post by gottorf »

oblio wrote: post #36
buzzy_hacker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not paying for pollution we know they cause is an implicit subsidy, feels quite obvious.

Then the same "implicit subsidy" goes for literally every facet of human activity. Do builders of wind turbines and solar farms also pay commensurately for the pollution in the manufacturing and development process?

Everything is implicitly subsidized because every action that any living being takes affects some other living being and the ecosystem as a whole, because we all live on the same planet. It's a meaningless statement.

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

#49

Post by nomel »

bamboozled wrote: post #26
jimbob45 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ch…

No, this should/can be based on data. Data says [1]:

1. Range

2. Cost (correlated with range)

3. Lack of charging infrastructure

Where I am, unless you own a home, charging an EV is more expensive than gas.

[1] https://www.supplychainconnect.com/news-trends/article/55137...

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

#50

Post by nostrademons »

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...

Other species don't call it profit because they don't have language, but if you broaden this to "We are the only species that will become extinct because short-term individualistic concerns trump ecological stability" ... it isn't true. Predator/prey dynamics and ecosystem collapse are common to a lot of ecosystems; I remember studying them in calculus at the same time as exponential growth and logistic curves. Locusts are a very familiar example where they act like common grasshoppers when food is abundant, but then start a swarming behavior that destroys whole ecosystems and kills off the vast majority of locusts once they detect that there isn't enough food to go around.
Post reply on HN