26 ms·

BP abandons goal to cut oil output, resets strategy

77 points by baanist 2y ago

denkmoon 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
- saintfire 2y ago
  Crack may have been a poor choice. Many dealers cut crack supplies all the time with other drugs, borax, detergents etc.
lilharddad 2y ago
[dead]
JohnMakin 2y ago
> BP (BP.L), opens new tab has abandoned a target to cut oil and gas output by 2030 as CEO Murray Auchincloss scales back the firm's energy transition strategy to regain investor confidence, three sources with knowledge of the matter said. > The company continues to target net zero emissions by 2050. "As Murray said at the start of year... the direction is the same – but we are going to deliver as a simpler, more focused, and higher value company," a BP spokesperson said. Bit confused by the discrepancy of these statements. Is this because this is an insider source that has not been officially announced (seems like it), or are they saying "We still plan to cut emissions by 2050... maybe sometime later" (seems less likely).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tw04 2y ago
  They’re claiming to target 2050 in the hopes that the EU won’t come down on them with a sledge hammer. The fact they’ve cut all targets for 2030, and cut back all renewable plans tells you there’s no actual plan to hit net zero. This was a pretty obvious end result when the head of their renewables group resigned in April and instead of replacing her they decided to “shrink the executive group” by exactly one headcount. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-cuts-size-executive-team-names-new-head-gas-low-carbon-energy-2024-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-cuts-size-executi...
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    yeesh, yea that makes sense. I personally think it was obvious quite a while ago, but the greenwashing lobby would scream you down if you dared challenge the long term efficacy of such programs. I don’t pretend to know the solution but asking the person nicely creating the problem to please stop making the problem worse doesn’t appear to have been a sound one. The thing that truly drives me nuts is people still scream and yell about small individual actions mattering when stuff like this is going on, it just seems like gaslighting to me.
- freefal67 2y ago
  My cynical interpretation is that the current CEO needed to begin taking steps to meet this 2030 goal and determined they didn't make financial sense. The 2050 goal is also unrealistic but is his successor's problem.
schiffern 2y ago
Pioneering systems theorist Donella Meadows makes a highly salient point. The problem with BP isn't because there are "bad people" at the top, and the solution isn't to replace them with "good people." The problem is that the decision-makers are constrained to act a certain way. If they made different decisions then.... those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, etc. It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions, not a problem of (as movies simplistically tell us) "bad people." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg
- imglorp 2y ago
  That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...
  - schiffern 2y ago
    > we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Sometimes it's pretty visible. Some slime molds (dictyostelids) form multicellular bodies when food is scarce and they have to hunt, and then go back to single-celled life when conditions are more favorable.
    - saintfire 2y ago
      Single celled organisms do it all the time, on a local scale. If you fill a jar with some yeast and sugar water, they'll feast and multiply at an accelerating pace until they've turned their environment toxic. Painfully analagous to humans.
tw04 2y ago
> as investors focused on near-term returns rather than the energy transition. If the justification for burning the earth to the ground continues to be “investors focused on short term returns” then governments need to start telling companies like BP they are legally and financially responsible for the effects those policies have on insurance rates and everything else. At some point if they can’t do the right thing because it’s a sound long term investment strategy, they need to pay the real price of their short term focused strategy.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  The way to do this is to price in the effect of the transactions on global climate. The reason the market will never solve this issue is because the cost is an externality; if we made it so every good sold included the cost to offset the damage to the environment, the market could address this issue.
  - animal_spirits 2y ago
    These are called effluent taxes and should be part of the talk around climate change and government. https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/effluent-tax https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-alman...
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Govts are in on the spoils of it. There’s no reason for govts to attain power over people and use it to lose their own power by destroying their economy.
- stonethrowaway 2y ago
  Yeaaaahh you keep saying that to yourself. The lack of action by people while expecting the government to do something is farcical. “There ought to be a law!” the outraged but impotent mob cries - and there will be one, when you take matters into your own hands and write it, just like the people who established this government did.
linkjuice4all 2y ago
It's depressing to see companies moving back towards a carbon-burning future. It seemed like electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar power advancement was finally starting to kill the market for ICE engines and 'dirty' thermal power. Between reversions like this, RTO mandates, and global conflicts that seem to include blowing up oil refineries it seems like there's absolutely no hope or interest from any major governments, businesses, or organizations to do anything to address global warming and climate change or even maintain our carbon outputs.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Does it not seem like electric vehicles will eventually swallow the world? It feels like it's 1900 and you're fighting tooth-and-nail to combat horse maltreatment while the rest of the world is surging toward a car-laden future. Would it not make more sense to simply focus efforts on EV adoption?
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    I'm not trying to blame this on "Elon" but that guy basically kicked off the revolution and is kind of destroying it. His cult following, toxic views and enthusiasm for conspiracies are starting to make EV ownership something for "weirdos" at a time when owning an EV was already contentious. At least in the US. There was a time when I dreamed of owning a Tesla, there is absolutely no way I'd drive one now. I think China is going to steam ahead towards Solar, Nuclear and EVs, so maybe there is hope there!
    - nomel 2y ago
      No, this should/can be based on data. Data says [1]: 1. Range 2. Cost (correlated with range) 3. Lack of charging infrastructure Where I am, unless you own a home, charging an EV is more expensive than gas. [1] https://www.supplychainconnect.com/news-trends/article/55137174/americans-remain-skeptical-about-electric-vehicles https://www.supplychainconnect.com/news-trends/article/55137...
      - 2y ago
taeric 2y ago
I'm rather torn on the discourse on this. I can understand disappointment that people are adjusting down on goals. What I don't understand is that this seems rather removed from outcome measures. Specifically, in this context, they are still reducing output. Just not as aggressively. Do we have reporting on what this means in real impact terms? Last reporting I have seen, the majority of carbon emissions are from locations that we aren't governing. Such that this is akin to yelling at people for not eating all of their food, because someone somewhere is starving.
bawana 2y ago
In 'The War Below' by Ernest Scheyder, I learned about the complexities of mining companies profiteering vs the rights of 'the land' as represented by the indigenous people and environmental activists. This is another example of how we use our knowledge to eviscerate the planet's resources developed over millenia for short term gains and enjoyment. And if you thought the oncoming demographic bomb and population collapse in the US, Europe, China and Japan will reduce demand, think again. The 0.1% who own this planet, will simply produce AI driven robots to do the work that humans cannot so they can continue to fly their jets and cruise in their yachts. How can we be so complacent when religious fanatics elsewhere are killing each other over so much less?
netsharc 2y ago
Anyone got the math, there's something like x degrees C more warming already calculated as future profits by oil companies: they've seen the oil fields, they know how much they can extract, and that amount of oil, burned, will cause those x degrees of warming. Asking them to keep it in the ground is like asking them to give up some billions of dollars of future profit ..

77 points by baanist 2y ago

denkmoon 2y ago

[flagged]

dang 2y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
saintfire 2y ago
Crack may have been a poor choice. Many dealers cut crack supplies all the time with other drugs, borax, detergents etc.

lilharddad 2y ago

[dead]

JohnMakin 2y ago

> BP (BP.L), opens new tab has abandoned a target to cut oil and gas output by 2030 as CEO Murray Auchincloss scales back the firm's energy transition strategy to regain investor confidence, three sources with knowledge of the matter said. > The company continues to target net zero emissions by 2050. "As Murray said at the start of year... the direction is the same – but we are going to deliver as a simpler, more focused, and higher value company," a BP spokesperson said. Bit confused by the discrepancy of these statements. Is this because this is an insider source that has not been officially announced (seems like it), or are they saying "We still plan to cut emissions by 2050... maybe sometime later" (seems less likely).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tw04 2y ago
They’re claiming to target 2050 in the hopes that the EU won’t come down on them with a sledge hammer. The fact they’ve cut all targets for 2030, and cut back all renewable plans tells you there’s no actual plan to hit net zero. This was a pretty obvious end result when the head of their renewables group resigned in April and instead of replacing her they decided to “shrink the executive group” by exactly one headcount. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-cuts-size-executive-team-names-new-head-gas-low-carbon-energy-2024-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-cuts-size-executi...
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  yeesh, yea that makes sense. I personally think it was obvious quite a while ago, but the greenwashing lobby would scream you down if you dared challenge the long term efficacy of such programs. I don’t pretend to know the solution but asking the person nicely creating the problem to please stop making the problem worse doesn’t appear to have been a sound one. The thing that truly drives me nuts is people still scream and yell about small individual actions mattering when stuff like this is going on, it just seems like gaslighting to me.
freefal67 2y ago
My cynical interpretation is that the current CEO needed to begin taking steps to meet this 2030 goal and determined they didn't make financial sense. The 2050 goal is also unrealistic but is his successor's problem.

schiffern 2y ago

Pioneering systems theorist Donella Meadows makes a highly salient point. The problem with BP isn't because there are "bad people" at the top, and the solution isn't to replace them with "good people." The problem is that the decision-makers are constrained to act a certain way. If they made different decisions then.... those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, etc. It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions, not a problem of (as movies simplistically tell us) "bad people." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg

imglorp 2y ago
That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...
- schiffern 2y ago
  > we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Sometimes it's pretty visible. Some slime molds (dictyostelids) form multicellular bodies when food is scarce and they have to hunt, and then go back to single-celled life when conditions are more favorable.
  - saintfire 2y ago
    Single celled organisms do it all the time, on a local scale. If you fill a jar with some yeast and sugar water, they'll feast and multiply at an accelerating pace until they've turned their environment toxic. Painfully analagous to humans.

tw04 2y ago

> as investors focused on near-term returns rather than the energy transition. If the justification for burning the earth to the ground continues to be “investors focused on short term returns” then governments need to start telling companies like BP they are legally and financially responsible for the effects those policies have on insurance rates and everything else. At some point if they can’t do the right thing because it’s a sound long term investment strategy, they need to pay the real price of their short term focused strategy.

cortesoft 2y ago
The way to do this is to price in the effect of the transactions on global climate. The reason the market will never solve this issue is because the cost is an externality; if we made it so every good sold included the cost to offset the damage to the environment, the market could address this issue.
- animal_spirits 2y ago
  These are called effluent taxes and should be part of the talk around climate change and government. https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/effluent-tax https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-alman...
wahnfrieden 2y ago
Govts are in on the spoils of it. There’s no reason for govts to attain power over people and use it to lose their own power by destroying their economy.
stonethrowaway 2y ago
Yeaaaahh you keep saying that to yourself. The lack of action by people while expecting the government to do something is farcical. “There ought to be a law!” the outraged but impotent mob cries - and there will be one, when you take matters into your own hands and write it, just like the people who established this government did.

linkjuice4all 2y ago

It's depressing to see companies moving back towards a carbon-burning future. It seemed like electric vehicles, battery technology, and solar power advancement was finally starting to kill the market for ICE engines and 'dirty' thermal power. Between reversions like this, RTO mandates, and global conflicts that seem to include blowing up oil refineries it seems like there's absolutely no hope or interest from any major governments, businesses, or organizations to do anything to address global warming and climate change or even maintain our carbon outputs.

jimbob45 2y ago
Does it not seem like electric vehicles will eventually swallow the world? It feels like it's 1900 and you're fighting tooth-and-nail to combat horse maltreatment while the rest of the world is surging toward a car-laden future. Would it not make more sense to simply focus efforts on EV adoption?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  I'm not trying to blame this on "Elon" but that guy basically kicked off the revolution and is kind of destroying it. His cult following, toxic views and enthusiasm for conspiracies are starting to make EV ownership something for "weirdos" at a time when owning an EV was already contentious. At least in the US. There was a time when I dreamed of owning a Tesla, there is absolutely no way I'd drive one now. I think China is going to steam ahead towards Solar, Nuclear and EVs, so maybe there is hope there!
  - nomel 2y ago
    No, this should/can be based on data. Data says [1]: 1. Range 2. Cost (correlated with range) 3. Lack of charging infrastructure Where I am, unless you own a home, charging an EV is more expensive than gas. [1] https://www.supplychainconnect.com/news-trends/article/55137174/americans-remain-skeptical-about-electric-vehicles https://www.supplychainconnect.com/news-trends/article/55137...
    - 2y ago

taeric 2y ago

I'm rather torn on the discourse on this. I can understand disappointment that people are adjusting down on goals. What I don't understand is that this seems rather removed from outcome measures. Specifically, in this context, they are still reducing output. Just not as aggressively. Do we have reporting on what this means in real impact terms? Last reporting I have seen, the majority of carbon emissions are from locations that we aren't governing. Such that this is akin to yelling at people for not eating all of their food, because someone somewhere is starving.

bawana 2y ago

In 'The War Below' by Ernest Scheyder, I learned about the complexities of mining companies profiteering vs the rights of 'the land' as represented by the indigenous people and environmental activists. This is another example of how we use our knowledge to eviscerate the planet's resources developed over millenia for short term gains and enjoyment. And if you thought the oncoming demographic bomb and population collapse in the US, Europe, China and Japan will reduce demand, think again. The 0.1% who own this planet, will simply produce AI driven robots to do the work that humans cannot so they can continue to fly their jets and cruise in their yachts. How can we be so complacent when religious fanatics elsewhere are killing each other over so much less?

netsharc 2y ago

Anyone got the math, there's something like x degrees C more warming already calculated as future profits by oil companies: they've seen the oil fields, they know how much they can extract, and that amount of oil, burned, will cause those x degrees of warming. Asking them to keep it in the ground is like asking them to give up some billions of dollars of future profit ..