Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.
Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority.
> towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff
That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.
Quit BP, Quit Shell, Quit Exxon.
The whole WW3 scare is silly. Putin isn't interested in a 1000 year reich. He's a KGB spy who spent his life resisting western influence, he is doing what he does best. Now that they have him feel cornerned though, things will get very bad. He may invade all the former soviet sattelites and the west should stay out of it unless WW3 is on the calendar.
Where do you draw the line? I don’t think any of those are acceptable. If you don’t fight a expansionist tyrant then what do you envision happens? Sacrificing innocent free countries to (maybe) appease a monster is completely out of the question.
Things can get bad if you interfere - things are guaranteed to get bad if you don’t
Tell that the Iraqis or Libyans or Syrians or Afghanis. Oh wait, they are terrorists when they do it but Ukrainians are freedom fighters?
People should quit BP? Because what? Exxon or Shell are so much better for the environment?
Do you know why there is so much Russia-quitting? Because there is political incentive to do so. There is nowhere near the same amount of unity and consensus among voters of democraric nations when it comes to climate change. It's not the politicians fault either. Inability to convince fellow voters (for whatever underlying reason) is what you should be blaming. It's easy to blame politicians and corporations, that way, you can blame someone and not have to do anything about it.