70
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] grue@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago

The "independent" corporation that owns each rig and somehow magically has no affiliation at all with the petroleum company that takes the rig's output will say "whoops, we have no money to decommission the rig and no assets to seize to pay for it, bye suckers!" and promptly go bankrupt and leave governments holding the bag.

[-] PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago

How very dare you suggest such a thing. This kind of thinking must come from your warped mind, and very definitely not be based on the slew of mines and chemical plants left to poison the landscape, and especially not the multitude of poorly-capped methane-leaking oil wells scattered around the US by those same companies!

[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Alright, you got me. I admit it: Superfund sites are a hoax I invented to push my 'woke' agenda!

[-] zante@lemmy.wtf 14 points 2 weeks ago

I was gonna go with “pay a marine biologist to publish a paper saying how the rig will become a haven for wildlife playing a vital part in ecosystem “

But I like yours more

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Why not both?

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 26 points 2 weeks ago

Fossil Fuel Barons: ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[-] Subtracty@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

I am sure it will suddenly be too expensive for them to safely decommission the platforms.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 weeks ago

They'll probably greenwash the whole thing, saying that leaving it up is great for wildlife because it creates a habitat for birds and marine life.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

If corporations are people why can't we take them out to the woodshed and beat them?

[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Knowing humans: build additional ones, but also keep these ones working past their eol date, after all, the short-term financial side effects of destroying all the things are negligible, and the profits huuuge.

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Am I insane for thinking one of these would be a cool place to take a holiday? I need a time out from society and being in middle of nowhere on the ocean would be otherworldly.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Except they stink, they are filthy dirty, there's nothing very comfortable.

And the weather can suck ass depending on the location.

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'd still do it. Living a week or two onboard a decommissioned oil rig is a very unique experience.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5149 readers
462 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS