this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
46 points (89.7% liked)

United Kingdom

4237 readers
166 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer appear happy to pursue growth at any cost – including the destruction of the planet

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If we never drill for it. Or allow anyone else. Studies will run out eventually.

It is in no way a solution. But the simple fact is adding new wells extends the time corperations and governments can delay implementing alternatives. Increasing the total amount of harm done to the enviroment.

It is not a zero sum game. Providing our own dose not mean the world burns the same amount t it means we burn for longer with less urgency to alternative options and inferstructure.

I mean honestly I am 54 years old. I learned about climate change in school in 1982. It was known proven science back that far. Esso/Exxon was the company that discovered and prooved it was man made back in the early 70s. They then decided to invest billions in climate change denial. Internally selling ideas like the one you are sharing.

These ideas exist for one reason. To allow oil companies to extract every fucking penny they can out of oil. Before we stop them. Its fucking disgusting that they have not been jailed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it was in my power, I would certainly jail the CEOs and nationalise the oil companies, so I'm with you there.

However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster

I agree. But many don't. Its def up for debate.

But that is in no way justification for new dilling. All drilling new fields dose is give excuses to delay those alternatives. We are not really waiting for new tech to solve this problem. The tech we have today is able to do it. What we need it the fiscal and societal motivation to move away from oil. More oil will just motivate those currently making money from it to slow down that investment more.

We need to invest in major inferstructure uprated to our electrical grid. Copy ideas like Norway new overhead power for trucking. (Think electric trams but using roads and semi trucks. Then using battery for last mile transport etc. While its only a trial being built atm. It is the type of thinking we need. And better electrical grids are the first steps.

Unfortunately giving current oil interests longer is not in anyway the solution. As a society we need to accept the use is going to stop. So pull our freaking socks up and get on with it. We don't need to wait for new tech. We need to implement the best of the current tech and stop finding excuses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

It's interesting you cite Norway because as I said elsewhere in this thread, they are a major oil producer and exporter who are also committed to green infrastructure. That's the exact approach I think we should take!

You are right that we have a lot of encouraging tech but deploying that takes time and money, and often an 'upfront' increase in carbon emissions. Other tech looks good but hasn't been proven to scale up or is still in the trial stage (as you akcnolwedge).

As I said, I agree with you that Norway is the model to follow; but they produce a lot of oil.