Do these people not know they are going to cook right along with us? A big pile of money isn’t going to save them either.
The only thing that makes sense is that they honestly DO believe a big pile of money will save them. Their big pile of money has been getting them out of trouble their whole lives, why would they expect it to all of a sudden stop working in this case? They’re wrong, but they don’t know that (yet).
Genuine question? They’re not going to be alive to see it fall lol.
They live out their life in luxury while your children burn for their choices. Don’t like it? Jail.
Depends on how fast climate breakdown occurs. It seems to be happening faster than predicted.
I mean realistically speaking the vast majority of the effects of climate change in our or even our children’s lifetimes are going to most dramatically affect developing nations by far.
Like yeah, by and large the people with AC in almost every home in the country are gonna be fine lol. Places where there’s already problems with getting everyone clean drinking water? Not so much.
This is unfortunately not true.
THIS is unfortunately not true.
Those that wrought it will not feel its effects.
https://www.usglc.org/blog/climate-change-and-the-developing-world-a-disproportionate-impact/
https://www.theigc.org/events/impact-climate-change-trade-developing-countries
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The casual listener could easily miss the first five seconds, when Pillai, a former BBC World News presenter whose voice instills instant confidence, announces that the podcast was produced by Reuters Plus in partnership with fossil fuel giant Saudi Aramco.
Pillai never explains that Reuters Plus is the publication’s internal ad studio, nor does she remind listeners of the show’s sponsor when the head of the innovation lab, an Aramco executive, touts the benefits of unproven, industry-backed technologies.
Known as advertorials or native advertising, the sponsored material is created to look like a publication’s authentic editorial work, lending a veneer of journalistic credibility to the fossil fuel industry’s key climate talking points.
“It’s really outrageous that outlets like the New York Times or Bloomberg or Reuters would lend their imprimatur to content that is misleading at best and in some cases outright false,” said Naomi Oreskes, a climate disinformation expert and professor at Harvard University.
“They wouldn’t be spending vast sums of money on these campaigns if they didn’t have a payoff, and it’s well documented that for decades, the fossil fuel industry has leveraged and weaponized and innovated the media technology of the day to its advantage,” said University of Miami researcher Geoffrey Supran, a co-author of the 2017 advertorial study with Oreskes.
Over the past three years, the Financial Times has also created dedicated web pages for various fossil majors, including Equinor and Aramco, along with native content and videos, all focused on promoting oil and gas as a key component of the energy transition.
The original article contains 2,509 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 90%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
