• eureka@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Nath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.