World News

38724 readers

2433 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

312

Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change (thehill.com)

submitted 7 months ago by i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Woods argued the “dirty secret” is that customers weren’t willing to pay for the added cost of cleaner fossil fuels.

In his comments Tuesday, Woods argued the “dirty secret” is that customers weren’t willing to pay for the added cost of cleaner fossil fuels.

Referring to carbon capture, Woods said Exxon has “tabled proposals” with governments “to get out there and start down this path using existing technology.”

“People can’t afford it, and governments around the world rightly know that their constituents will have real concerns,” he added.

“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.”

For example, he said Exxon “could, today, make sustainable aviation fuel for the airline business. But the airline companies can’t afford to pay.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They're deflecting, but not entirely wrong. Most people rather want to keep their comfortable status quo, than being directly affected by actually effective climate actions. Otherwise people would behave and vote differently. You can't always blame things on the lack of policies when you willingly vote for the people upholding the status quo instead of those who actually want to do something against it. You can see how much resistance there is whenever there's even the slightest bit of climate related policy tried to get shoved through parliaments.

[–] Contestant@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I can't even convince my "liberal" friends and family to buy an electric car (That I know they can afford), because they are afraid of the slight inconvenience of charging. He is right, the West is unwilling to accept a lower standard of living to address oil usage.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, and now try to convince people that they shouldn't even drive individual cars at all. It's just not going to happen. Especially not within the next decade. Not that this time frame seem to matter too much now that we potentially are already past the 1.5 degrees, much ahead of time. I guess we as a species deserve what's coming for us. Too bad we had to take so many other casualties on our way.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I have talked with friends about beef. On the one hand, the beef industry is a terribly cruel process producing a relatively expensive food that's significantly contributing to climate change and destruction of forests. By eating less of it you'd save money, reduce animal and human suffering and protect the planet. On the other hand, it's tasty. Many people will listen to the problems and even acknowledge them, but changing their eating habits is another matter.

[–] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago

It certainly doesn't help that these people hired the pr firms that did propaganda for big tobacco to kneecap the climate movement. Maybe if they had spent that money in the other direction they could have been collecting subsidizes to develop cleaner fuels.