“we’ve waited too long to open the aperture on the solution sets in terms of what we need, as a society, to start reducing emissions,” Woods told Fortune

Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org web.archive.org archive.today

    • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s a really poor suggestion.

      The guillotine was invented as a fast, efficient, humane method of execution. It was meant to take the human factor out of it for a clean, repeatable result.

      The device you want is called a wood chipper.

      • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s what I don’t get. If I’m determined to off myself, why not take someone with me that would make the world a better place to be without? I definitely have a name at the top of my list, but since I’m not suicidal, it just remains a fantasy.

        I hope this post doesn’t get me added to any lists myself. I’m talking in hypotheticals here.

  • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    8 months ago

    Far be it from me to tell a Lemmy mob not to eat an oil exec, but wow that’s not even close to what the article says.

    “So we’ve got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution, and make it more available and more affordable so that you can begin the [clean energy] transition.”

    As per the article, this exec is saying the exact opposite of “it’s too late to transition to clean energy so we might as well not bother.” He’s saying “it’s taking too long because it’s too expensive, so we need to focus on making it cheaper so we can get there faster.”

    Is he lying about wanting to hasten the transition to clean energy? Maybe.

    Are there other reasons that he is a fiend that must be eaten by the working class? Likely. Article hints at some of them.

    But wow this take is off base. These guys do a good enough job making themselves look bad, we don’t have to also make stuff up.

    • Cris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      I appreciate you doing the work to add more context for folks who didn’t read the article (myself included 😅)

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lol, thanks. Sometimes I’m the one skimming the comments and skipping the article, so I’m glad I cold be helpful this time. I was expecting to get downvoted to hell based on the rest of the comments, but I’m happy to see that the response has been mostly positive.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean he also blames the people using electricity and says they need to pay more to cover the carbon offset costs which sounds a lot like he’s looking for an excuse to raise prices and push governmental fees on consumers more directly in this same speech.

      I read through the article and think him saying it’s too late is like the barely visible take when he’s flashing a neon sign of “I’m not cutting down production and you fuckers are gonna pay for it!” And blaming governments for not wanting to pay for company infrastructure changes is hilarious when they lobby to make it so there is no more government insight anywhere else but covering the costs they don’t want to pay.

      He’s definitely on the list but yeah title and thing OP tried to pull from this is so not the worst part of it.

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, exactly-- There’s plenty of oil exec bullshit right there in the article, but I was surprised to learn that he was actually talking about clean energy as an important thing to hurry toward, and investing large sums in carbon capture and stuff. A far cry from cartoonish climate denialism and trying to stop decarbonization.

        I saw another post on the same article that had a title like “oil exec tells the public that it’s their responsibility to foot the bill for clean energy…” And while I think that’s lacking a little nuance, it’s at least one area (of several!) that represents an actual claim that deserves criticism.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      He’s saying “it’s taking too long because it’s too expensive, so we need to focus on making it cheaper so we can get there faster.”

      Which is a lie and a bogus statement. They want it to be cheaper so they can get more profits, as usual.

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Is it? Solar, for example, is getting cheaper, and as it gets cheaper, more people adopt it, which broadens its impact. Electric cars were prohibitively expensive until companies put R&D money into building cars that people could afford, and now they’re starting to gain traction.

        Not to say that companies producing solar cells and EVs aren’t also trying to profit… But both things can be true.

    • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s taking too long because the fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidized creating the appearance of a stronger cost advantage for fossil fuels than actually exists, which is the kind of bullshit Exxon-Mobil CEO is responsible for.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      This kinda lines up with propaganda I’ve been seeing the past couple years (from the likes of Peter Theil and Alex Epstein). They argue that we should be extracting and using fossil fuels as fast as possible. The (stupid, fucked up, wishful thinking) idea is that cheap energy drives human development and technological solutions to climate change.

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah… And I mean, that’s correct in a sense-- Cheap energy is good. It’s just not the only factor.

        Like cheap food is great too, but you might end up in a bad place if your nutrition strategy is just “spend as little as possible.”

    • mcvikingqueef@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      “So we’ve got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution”

      As if they don’t have a significant sum of all the worlds money. If its too expensive they should be eating all the cost, since they are the ones that put us in this mess, knowingly. They shouldn’t be complaining that it costs too much. Maybe instead of wasting all that money lobbying against climate science, they could have put all that money into decarb and renewables. We are lightyears behind where we could be and why? Because they lied about what they knew and had to keep lying about it and maintaining the narrative that there is no problem. Can’t get anybody to believe that anymore so now they say they need more time and money and its just too hard guys. No excuses for these vampires.

    • bazus1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      … with his opinion which is of no consequence at all.

      Edit: no Radiohead fans here?

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It makes it clear that a lot of the doomerism we’ve been seeing encouraged by oil industry PR firms is in fact coming from the top.

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Honestly it shows that idiots will jump to whatever makes them feel tough, all these people calling for the ceo to be killed because they think he said the same tough guy thing that I’ve seen posted all over the place probably by many of the same people calling for his death…

          Meanwhile he’s actually just said the same thing that all the experts in the field have been saying for a long time about how important it is to use economic forces to accelerate transition.

          It would be so nice if we actually took the time to make informed opinions so we can work towards actual solutions. Yes it’s hard but if you actually care then that means putting in the work.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 months ago

    Man if there’s one person who’s opinion I respect on climate change, it’s definitely the CEO of Exxon-Mobil.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        We’re all shareholders by a certain age. Do you contribute to a 401k? If so, you’re a shareholder. The CEOs and corporate board members use shareholder *demands" as a convenient excuse to justify their own sociopathic insatiable need for more money they’ll never spend.

    • PenguinCoder@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Reminds me of that saying choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it. Their incentive is to do the job just good enough and with the least amount of effort. The shareholders incentive here is make money. So we need to make Fossil fuel business illegal. The shareholders still want to make money. They’ll find an alternative way to do so. OH HEY LOOK! No longer reliant on fossil fuels?

  • ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    “too early, too late, whatever as long as now is not the right time that’s all I care about”

  • Mesophar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wasn’t there recently an article from TheOnion or such that said this exact thing? Wild how little fucks these monsters give about anyone but themselves.

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    This has been “Climate Change Denial 2.0” for years now. Realistically, it’s nothing more than a neoliberal dogwhistle to signal “I’m on board for killing everyone if it’s profitable”.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are actually books already written about how the PR folks the executives hire have been doing this for several years.

  • Syo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    Denied, Delayed, Disinformed successfully!

    CEO, “Now, board of directors, how much bonus are you paying me.”

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    If anyone wanted a proof that environmental pessimism is only helping the oligarchs, there you fucking go

  • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Does anyone want to step up to pay?” No, I was thinking we could just tax the shit out of rich assholes like this empty suit and use that money.