Literally execute fossil fuel company execs. Killing the world unapologetically is the greatest crime of all. They have no remorse, continue to do so, and get filthy rich. Unredeemable.
Seriously the only route they’ve left available to us.
But that will never happen so we’re fucked I guess.
They operate on our collective belief that it will never happen.
If we want to change that we have to start with the thought that it can happen, I’m all for firing squad but if we have to settle at bleeding them dry to cover the very (very) costly climate catastrophe they have brought upon us, so be it.
deleted by creator
This is the reason why they’ve made sure only their brainwashed nutjob militias have all the guns. And also why the police are a bunch of classist racists too, along with much of the military (which primarily recruits from the south).
I don’t want to put my conspiracy hat on, but it also might be why “liberal” politicians try to get states with tons of activists to have the strictest gun laws. I’m not a second amendment wingnut, but if the corpos and their fascist storm troopers every decided to start a shooting war with the civilian population, I have no illusions about who’d probably win, given that the average civilian is just a coward who’ll back off and comply when even slightly threatened with violence.
I think it’s more likely that buying politicians left and right is a safer and cleaner strategy. In the US it’s also very effective to capture the Supreme Court, so you can get things like Citizens United as legalize political bribes entirely.
I think that, because even an organized militia of activists won’t be able do something against a professional one. You gotta capture the one with the monopoly for violence (the police and the state). When you compare with what happens everywhere else in the world, you can see the same strategy everywhere adapted to the different weaknesses for government capture (pay the dictator, pay the oligarchs, buy the media etc.).
I think that it’s more likely the case that a revolt through not “doing the work” would be successful in the United States. Sure we had armed fights in labor movements, but what I think really moves the needle is people just saying fuck you I won’t work under these conditions. Those atop the pyramid rely much more on other’s labor to sustain themselves.
This is why they also want to keep you poor and drain the social safety net: so that you cannot afford to miss a single paycheck and have no recourse to working all day every day just to feed yourself and your family.
Strikes basically. Yes, I agree. Money only makes them powerful because we need it to buy goods from them.
People have to be a lot more desperate and there has to be an obvious line to the suffering they’re feeling and the oil CEO’s to make that happen I think.
As it stands they will do anything and everything to divide the people against each other as oppose to against them and they’re doing a good job of it.
Don’t forget to execute the shareholders.
I hope you don’t have a retirement fund……
Can’t retire if the world is dead
Huh? I think you missed my point. He said kill shareholders, if he has a 401k then he would be killing himself.
Yes I know there are “green” funds, no I don’t think it matters.
People tend to forget, that labour unions were a compromise created after workers got angry of the exploitation so much that they raided the factory owners and killed them.
Who will you buy your oil from then?
We need to change the way we make energy. Killing oil companies is a secondary consequence of switching to renewables
Every day is record heat temperatures and we need the nuclear option at this point. Scum of the earth should be purged. They cannot be rehabilitated and are one of the biggest threats to Earth’s existence.
If we stop consuming oil today, clean turkey, billions of people die.
Maybe there’s a less “Thanos Snap” solution to this problem, yeah?
Removed by mod
We’re doing all of the not-absurd things you mention. It won’t happen overnight.
Removed by mod
Cool. And what happens to the company? We can for sure just shut down all oil companies today, and what happens then?
People buy oil. They give these companies money because we want what they have. We need to change our behaviours or the polluting does not stop. It just means our money goes to a new oil company.
Cannot remember how many years ago I have seen this comic for the first time. Gets more relevant each year.
This is my first time seeing it. It’ll stay relevant for 100 years more.
deleted by creator
Think of the shareholders!
anybody remember during the covid pandemic how oil producers lowered production because the price per barrel was going too low?
In the 1970’s Exxon not only knew about climate change due to the burning of their fossil fuels, they accurately predicted global warming projections. And studies by their internal scientists continued to predict and verify global warming in a bunch of reports between 1977 and 2003. Yet they still continued to lobby against renewable energy and admitted that they still aggressively fought climate change science.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-models-global-warming/index.html
For example, fossil fuel companies have tended to solely measure ‘scope 1’ and ‘scope 2’ emissions. These are the greenhouse gases directly related to their operations. In effect, they consider only the emissions from the exploration, extraction, and production of fossil fuels in their net-zero targets.
As a result, oil majors often do not account for the emissions that consumers generate from the burning of their products. These downstream GHGs are referred to as ‘scope 3’ emissions.
What a fucking useless metric.
Conservatives absolutely love that they are winning on this front, even though their success is killing them as well. Like a suicide bomber, they don’t care. They need others to suffer in order to feel fulfilled.
Conservatism is a deadly mental illness.
For example, fossil fuel companies have tended to solely measure ‘scope 1’ and ‘scope 2’ emissions. These are the greenhouse gases directly related to their operations. In effect, they consider only the emissions from the exploration, extraction, and production of fossil fuels in their net-zero targets.
As a result, oil majors often do not account for the emissions that consumers generate from the burning of their products. These downstream GHGs are referred to as ‘scope 3’ emissions.
However, since this study evaluates overall production, it prevents companies from shifting responsibility for scope 3 emissions.
This is honestly a really bad take. This is what leads to people saying dumb shit like “a handful of companies cause 90%” of emissions.
The way we end fossil-fuel dependence is by holding downstream companies themselves responsible for Scope 3, thus spurring them to move away from dependence of fossil fuels.
Pinning all accountability on FF companies to have an easy bad guy is absolutely counterproductive to solving the problem.
But if we limit their output by not encouraging more federally, wouldn’t that increase prices and make renewable alternatives more favorable?
I’m not sure what you mean by “not encouraging more federally” and the devil is very much in the details on that one.
Carbon Taxes with dividends would be far be the best means we have to switch away from fossil fuels, but the American people would never tolerate it. It’s a political non-starter.
Currently the best method federally is subsidies for green energy/tech adoption, because those things only make 40ish percent of people lose their shit instead of 80%.
Removed by mod
They’ve already made so much money, why are they still greedy for more?
Capitalism demands never-ending growth and profits for shareholders. Energy companies should be nationalized, it’s the only way I can think of to rein them in.
💀
I hear you :(
Line go up make rich man pp hard
that pp needs to be broken and shoved up their ass.
