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

51–60 of 90 posts

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

#51

Post by pfdietz »

gottorf wrote: post #48
oblio wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 meaningles…

What an exercise in false equivalence. Does every facet of human activity have the same impact as CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion?

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

#52

Post by shadowtree »

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...

The internet you use to transmit this message wouldn't exist without fossil fuels - and I am not talking about energy, but computer and networking materials.

Ditto the fertilizer and many other things that keep you alive to type on here too.

It's very hard to maintain modern civilization without oil/gas products. Unless you want to be Amish.

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

#53

Post by njtransit »

david38 wrote: post #46
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.

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

But you don’t know the cleanup cost yet, so how can you put a dollar amount on the subsidy?

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by _spduchamp »

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…

I agree with this, and what is amazing is that one particular layer in our systems with the biggest impact is electoral systems. Most people are blind to the fact that we live in the side effects of bad math that leads to less accountability. Electoral reform has trouble getting traction in some places. (Canada, USA, UK, and all these other fantastic "democracies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting)

If we all had better representation, maybe we could have some accountability in governments to help enact policy that we actually want.

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

#56

Post by layoric »

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…

I'd say you are right that solar is at your stage 4.. for countries with particular geographical features. If you have a large land mass to distribute solar utility sites over, the power curve becomes predictable since weather that impacts solar production is also geographically distributed (its highly unlikely to be cloudy everywhere in a large country). With this predictability comes the ability to use the least amount of storage (cheaper) for continual, reliable power. And China being responsible for the continual price drops of production of panels, and storage, it makes sense they will be the first to achieve this, despite other countries (Australia for example) having a more favorable irradiance, and larger land mass.

Countries without a large land mass can't do this, a good example being Singapore. And even then, solar is being a potential large reliable power source by getting Australia to literally cable power thousands of kilometers.[0]

Solar has won IMO, it will just take a while for it to reach stage 4 everywhere.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/21/australia-greenligh...

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

#57

Post by nomel »

stonogo wrote: post #47
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 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'…

> 80% of the solution

In the US, only 39% of emissions are from fossil fuels used for transportation [1]. Where I am, around 60% of my EV power comes from natural gas plants that run at night, where electricity is 3.5x cheaper (electricity costs more than gas during peak hours where I am).

With the lack of new nuclear, and the required 25-50% increase in our power grid, a quick (as in 20 year) change in EV adoption would almost certainly mean that more of these natural plants come online when charging happens, negating at least some of the CO2 savings.

80% seems fictitious.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=307&t=10#:~:text=C....

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

#58

Post by foobarian »

nomel wrote: post #38
bamboozled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just depressing, it's ruinous. We will be ruined as a species from this. I'm still pressing a head with my personal contribution by cladding our new house in panels!

This is an unpopular question, where people assume things about me, but by what mechanism would the human species be ruined? It seems that would require that all innovation towards climate mitigations stops, when it hasn't really even started yet. Reversing climate change probably isn't going to happen, but mitigation is still on the table, from routing fresh water from wetter northern climates to desalinization plan…

Perhaps once all the easy obtainable fossil resources are gone, and climate change settles down on a new equilibrium, humanity will also settle on a long-term sustainable way of living. Perhaps that will even be a civilized way, but it may also well end up a hunter-gatherer existence akin to what Europeans found in North America a few centuries ago.

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

#59

Post by dml2135 »

shadowtree wrote: post #52
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...

The internet you use to transmit this message wouldn't exist without fossil fuels - and I am not talking about energy, but computer and networking materials. Ditto the fertilizer and many other things that keep you alive to type on here too. It's very hard to maintain modern civilization without oil/gas products. Unless you want to be Amish.

I’d rather be Amish than dead!

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

#60

Post by sunshinesnacks »

shadowtree wrote: post #52
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...

The internet you use to transmit this message wouldn't exist without fossil fuels - and I am not talking about energy, but computer and networking materials. Ditto the fertilizer and many other things that keep you alive to type on here too. It's very hard to maintain modern civilization without oil/gas products. Unless you want to be Amish.

I think reducing fossil fuel use is separate from petroleum product use. We can have petroleum products without burning fossil fuels. Costs of petroleum extraction might go up, though, I imagine.
Post reply on HN