“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
“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
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.
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.