199
This is the most depressing point. Why would they. They will be long gone. Why risk their profits now. Fuck humanity I want mine now.
Leah Stokes's book, Short Circuiting Policy, goes down what actually gets utilities to act: renewable portfolio standards, requiring them to generate a certain fraction of their energy via non-emitting sources. When the state public utilities commissions are given teeth to enforce those, they're incredibly effective.
Nationalize and remove corruption. That does it too
Whaaaaaat? Corporate leaders don't care about honoring costly changes that will fundamentally change their industry when making those changes isn't tied to their compensation and the deadline for achieving them isn't until after they retire or are even dead?
I, personally, am shocked.
2050 is so far into the future its meaningless. If they were serious, it would be early to mid 2030s. What's worse is that renewable energy is very viable and there are tons of tax credits to offset the investment, so it also seems like poor corporate strategy to not invest.
Yeah that's just playing for time. Can't do anything this year eh?
Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies! But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.
If they were serious, they'd be making quarterly goals. Maybe not net zero this quarter or the next, but the immediate target would certainly not be more than a couple years from now at max.
And they’re likely to purchase or play with “carbon offsets” which this video does a good job of summarizing why they don’t work
Like carbon capture before it, carbon offsets are mainly a scam that uses hypothetical mitigation to excuse increasing ACTUAL harm.
TLDW? Is it that we haven't figured it out yet or is there reason to believe it'll never actually work?
"Sorry, we thought you meant net zero polar ice."
2050 was always meant to be a kick the can down the road kind of idea. Appeasement for those concerned - status quo for the people making money in those businesses now. There was never any idea to change, perhaps only a hope that by 2050 other solutions would have presented themselves.
Honda's latest commercial that says 2050 is laughable and makes me not take them seriously.
The thing about "says 2050" that is that you need to look at more: what are they doing now and over the next few years.
People can "say 2050" and be taking action now...or not.
If they promise it already, there should be no problem when banning all fossil fuel power plants by 2050. See no problem.
No problem with a tax five hundred percent cost to caputre all emitted carbon being placed on all fossil plants by 2040 two. I mean they won’t still make up a major source of revenue in fifteen years, right.
OH REALLY!?
What a fucking suprise -_-
Well duh, we’ve got another 26 years before we even need to start thinking about that! /s
2050 😂 I pledge to be a billionaire by then
Of course they do, it will be a problem for future CEOs
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
199 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5244 readers
582 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS