"British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe." People on here use this as a big stick to beat the 'wokies' with, when it was actually the super-woke oil giants they should be aiming their frustrations at.
You do realise that you spend most of your waking life disagreeing with people for the sake of it and slinging abuse? It can't be any good for your own well-being. It also suggests that you're not particularly congruent.
You are the one coming out with nonsense and bandying the word wok about. Presumably you don’t fly on holiday, drive a car or use any of the derivatives of petroleum? Never use a bus or a train? It is the people using the products of the petroleum companies causing the problems. How do you think we would get on if all the oil companies shut up shop tomorrow? I would check on the meanings of words like congruent before using them.
You appear incongruent because of the way you put yourself first in your posts, whilst simultaneously being unaware of how your posts do little for self-care.
Self care? What the **** are you on about? I don’t put myself first in posts. You came out with a statement which I thought was silly and responded. I asked a question, well two questions, both of which you have not answered,
Oh come now, I'm only trying to be helpful. I am not responding to the question because that post was exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. You then proceeded to add the cherry on top by conflating separate issues.
So, you contribute to climate change but blame the oil companies? You don’t have to use their products. And how do you think we would get on if the oil companies shut down tomorrow? Despite all the verbiage in your post you offer no solutions.
It all started way earlier than that. There's a graphic that nicely shows all the scaremongering that's being going on for literally decades, getting to near a century. At some point you have to stop and ask why. Climate change is real. That's what it does. Our current response to it is crackers on so many levels. 0.04 x 3% x ...
The amount of damage tree-hugging hippies have done by campaigning against nuclear energy for decades has been catastrophic. The Greens in Germany campaigned relentlessly against nuclear power. Want to know what Germany did after decommissioning all their nuclear plants? They reopened or built new coal plants, or they relied on gas from Russia. It started with middle-class boomer hippies in the 60s who then passed it on to their kids and grandkids.
I kinda agree with you, Nuclear it is the cleanest form of energy in terms of co2 emissions but the problem with nuclear is we are creating a huge problem for future generations……what do we do with nuclear waste? We currently don’t have a solution other than seal & bury it. plus when it goes wrong it goes very very wrong!! But I do think nuclear will be the future with the move into fission in the next 10 years
The problem with nuclear is the cost - the cost of building and maintaining the plant is 100 times that of renewable sources such as wind and solar - so this is why so much more investment, private and public has gone into renewables. So the cost of the electricity per Kwh is significantly higher to the consumer. France heavily subsidised their building of plants and the power produced, for Germany it was far cheaper and instant access to cheap energy to use coal and russian gas... Their economic miracle couldn't be held back waiting decades for plants to be built. The final nail for nuclear, which those over 50 will know, was the fear and unknown created by Chernobyl - not many governments in Europe wanted to invest after the disaster. The public didn't want it and private investment didn't want to touch it. My grandmother campaigned with CND in the sixties. It wasn't against nuclear power, it was against nuclear weapons. She didn't want her children and grandchildren living under fear. She worked in a post office as a cashier... Wasn't middle class.
In Germany it was cheaper for them to go back to coal and gas than try to shift towards renewables, but the motivation for closing their existing nuclear plants was more ideologically-motivated. Only around 20% of Germany’s energy comes from renewables. Nuclear is less than 1%. The rest is from fossil fuels. France on the other hand is predominantly nuclear with around 20% from renewables and the rest from fossil fuels. Germany has twice as much CO2 emissions per capita than France. France has the ‘cleaner’ energy because they stuck with nuclear in the long run, whereas Germany closed all their nuclear plants due to the scaremongering of the German Greens. France also has cheaper energy prices for customers than Germany. Publicly-owned nuclear energy is clearly better for the environment and consumers than privately-owned fossil fuels.
Not so good for public finances recently though, EDF made a US$19b loss last year and have been importing electricity from the U.K. due to issues with ageing nuclear facilities.
