This isn’t wrong, but it would also be a mistake to ignore her altogether. The wider point she is making is that many of the people protesting Woodside’s actions are also consumers. Home energy in particular is something people take for granted. People also don’t think about the energy it takes to order stuff online, or to buy asparagus and avocados from Mexico etc.
Woodside exists to make money. They make money by meeting a demand that we the consumers are providing. I’m no exception here, so this isn’t a soapbox spiel. We need to work toward a renewable future, but simply are not yet in a position where we can avoid burning any fossil fuels as well. If we accept that we need fossil fuels in our world for the moment, it is our responsibility to keep the Woodsides of the world to practices that are as sustainable for the planet as possible, not only sustainable for their profit margins.
Hold these people to a high standard, yes. But don’t ignore the difference millions of people can also make. Don’t simply go “eh, my teeny carbon footprint is insignificant next to Woodside’s” - because collectively all our footprints together are in fact a bit significant.
but it would also be a mistake to ignore her altogether
Just because she might be factually correct doesn’t mean her comment, in context, is worth listening to. It’s a bad-faith deflection. It’s pretty bloody unlikely that people who care about fossil fuels are oblivious to their own decisions. She’s not teaching anyone something we don’t know, or making a valuable point. She’s trying to tarnish the character of her critics by (falsely) suggesting that their own consumption makes it hypocritical to criticise Woodside.
She’s trying to tarnish the character of her critics by (falsely) suggesting that their own consumption makes it hypocritical to criticise Woodside.
That wasn’t the take I got at all.
“So that human impact and the consumer’s role in driving energy demand and emissions absolutely is a missing space in the conversation.”
She’s basically saying the entire reason they exist and are doing what they do is because of consumer demand. That’s you and me. We just aren’t to accept it if we flick a switch and power doesn’t come on. In the medium term, we still need fossil fuels to support our society.
The correct response to her is to keep developing and employing sources of energy that reduce this demand. And not only for us, but for people globally.
We’re consumers of her energy because our choice is currently that or nothing. This company has a stranglehold on our energy industry to the point that they have bought politicians and crushed green energy alternatives. Now she’s calling us hypocrites for not using those non existant alternatives.
You’ve completely missed the point. Yes, those companies are driving emissions. Where are they driving those emissions to though? People like you and me who are generating that demand. Nobody is burning fossil fuels for shits and giggles. They’re doing it to make a profit. It is also worth looking at who those companies are - very strong representation in developing nations who are lifting their populations into the modern world. If you are the beneficiary of two centuries of industrial advancement, it’s a bit hypocritical to sit there and claim that people who are trying to join you are the problem.
We’re talking specifically about Australian environmental issues here and an Australian company. In Australia, renewable energy is subsidised and more incentives are on the way. I don’t think you’ll find too many people in Australia who will agree that their home electricity bills are low. They are in fact so high that the federal government has stepped in to help households pay their power bills.
We are also talking about a gas company in WA. WA has a scheme where gas is sold to its domestic market at a lower rate under a very smart quota system, but this is not a subsidy - it is a recognition that the gas is owned by everyone and does not just belong to the company that happens to extract it.
This isn’t wrong, but it would also be a mistake to ignore her altogether. The wider point she is making is that many of the people protesting Woodside’s actions are also consumers. Home energy in particular is something people take for granted. People also don’t think about the energy it takes to order stuff online, or to buy asparagus and avocados from Mexico etc.
Woodside exists to make money. They make money by meeting a demand that we the consumers are providing. I’m no exception here, so this isn’t a soapbox spiel. We need to work toward a renewable future, but simply are not yet in a position where we can avoid burning any fossil fuels as well. If we accept that we need fossil fuels in our world for the moment, it is our responsibility to keep the Woodsides of the world to practices that are as sustainable for the planet as possible, not only sustainable for their profit margins.
Hold these people to a high standard, yes. But don’t ignore the difference millions of people can also make. Don’t simply go “eh, my teeny carbon footprint is insignificant next to Woodside’s” - because collectively all our footprints together are in fact a bit significant.
Just because she might be factually correct doesn’t mean her comment, in context, is worth listening to. It’s a bad-faith deflection. It’s pretty bloody unlikely that people who care about fossil fuels are oblivious to their own decisions. She’s not teaching anyone something we don’t know, or making a valuable point. She’s trying to tarnish the character of her critics by (falsely) suggesting that their own consumption makes it hypocritical to criticise Woodside.
That wasn’t the take I got at all.
“So that human impact and the consumer’s role in driving energy demand and emissions absolutely is a missing space in the conversation.”
She’s basically saying the entire reason they exist and are doing what they do is because of consumer demand. That’s you and me. We just aren’t to accept it if we flick a switch and power doesn’t come on. In the medium term, we still need fossil fuels to support our society.
The correct response to her is to keep developing and employing sources of energy that reduce this demand. And not only for us, but for people globally.
We’re consumers of her energy because our choice is currently that or nothing. This company has a stranglehold on our energy industry to the point that they have bought politicians and crushed green energy alternatives. Now she’s calling us hypocrites for not using those non existant alternatives.
Our individual demand is driven by the supply side. Fossil fuels are heavily, heavily subsidized by governments, so gas is cheap for vehicles, heating, electricity generation, etc. I’m all for a fair and non-catastrophic transition, but climate change is here and we can point to just 57 companies driving 80% of CO2 emissions: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/since-2016-80-percent-of-global-co2-emissions-come-from-just-57-companies-report-shows-180984118/
You’ve completely missed the point. Yes, those companies are driving emissions. Where are they driving those emissions to though? People like you and me who are generating that demand. Nobody is burning fossil fuels for shits and giggles. They’re doing it to make a profit. It is also worth looking at who those companies are - very strong representation in developing nations who are lifting their populations into the modern world. If you are the beneficiary of two centuries of industrial advancement, it’s a bit hypocritical to sit there and claim that people who are trying to join you are the problem.
We’re talking specifically about Australian environmental issues here and an Australian company. In Australia, renewable energy is subsidised and more incentives are on the way. I don’t think you’ll find too many people in Australia who will agree that their home electricity bills are low. They are in fact so high that the federal government has stepped in to help households pay their power bills.
We are also talking about a gas company in WA. WA has a scheme where gas is sold to its domestic market at a lower rate under a very smart quota system, but this is not a subsidy - it is a recognition that the gas is owned by everyone and does not just belong to the company that happens to extract it.