• @Mojojojo1993
    link
    English
    231 year ago

    This is the most depressing point. Why would they. They will be long gone. Why risk their profits now. Fuck humanity I want mine now.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      Leah Stokes’s book, Short Circuiting Policy, goes down what actually gets utilities to act: renewable portfolio standards, requiring them to generate a certain fraction of their energy via non-emitting sources. When the state public utilities commissions are given teeth to enforce those, they’re incredibly effective.

      • @Mojojojo1993
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        Nationalize and remove corruption. That does it too

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    Whaaaaaat? Corporate leaders don’t care about honoring costly changes that will fundamentally change their industry when making those changes isn’t tied to their compensation and the deadline for achieving them isn’t until after they retire or are even dead?

    I, personally, am shocked.

  • @Twentytwodividedby7
    link
    151 year ago

    2050 is so far into the future its meaningless. If they were serious, it would be early to mid 2030s. What’s worse is that renewable energy is very viable and there are tons of tax credits to offset the investment, so it also seems like poor corporate strategy to not invest.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies! But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.

    • BruceTwarzen
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Yeah that’s just playing for time. Can’t do anything this year eh?

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      If they were serious, they’d be making quarterly goals. Maybe not net zero this quarter or the next, but the immediate target would certainly not be more than a couple years from now at max.

  • @kaibae
    link
    English
    8
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      The thing about “says 2050” that is that you need to look at more: what are they doing now and over the next few years.

      People can “say 2050” and be taking action now…or not.

  • @Infernal_pizza
    link
    English
    71 year ago

    Well duh, we’ve got another 26 years before we even need to start thinking about that! /s

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    If they promise it already, there should be no problem when banning all fossil fuel power plants by 2050. See no problem.

  • ThyTTY
    link
    51 year ago

    Of course they do, it will be a problem for future CEOs

  • @Mannimarco
    link
    31 year ago

    OH REALLY!?

    What a fucking suprise -_-