Decarbonisation - Is This Sort of Content Cringeworthy or Justified?

ddilrat on 07/10/2023 - 01:41

I work in an industry which is spending a lot of money working out ways to decarbonise operations in the next few decades. The current status is that while it is definitely possible, even today, the costs are still astronomically high. I believe in the goal, but I would say I am more pragmatic about the way to get there than a lot of people.

Fortescue or Fortescue Future industries is probably the most prevalent industrial company in the media talking about their aggressive decarbonisation approach and timeline.
Recently I have started to notice their posts on LinkedIn about decarbonisation are becoming more and more over the top and what I would call cringeworthy.

Example: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fortescue_lethalhumidity-real…

To me, this just comes across as extremely over the top, catastrophising, click-bait rubbish. This sort of content is what we have come to expect from certain media outlets trying to sell clicks but to me, this is just embarrassing for this sort of company.

I'm keen to hear from the esteemed people of OzBargain. Do you also think this is becoming too cringeworthy or is it perfectly justified given man-made climate change?

Poll Options expired

  • 37
    Cringeworthy and embarrasing
  • 5
    Agree but messaging could be better
  • 9
    Who cares they can post what they want
  • 9
    Justified given the climate crisis
Education & Work

Comments

  • bargaino on 07/10/2023 - 02:14
    +5

    Can I vote "all of the above"?

  • afoveht on 07/10/2023 - 02:41
    -4

    It's cringeworthy here because the talker ain't really doing the walking.

    But the general issue has the consensus of a lot of well informed people with well qualified reasons saying that yes, it should be a priority.

    I believe in the goal, but I would say I am more pragmatic about the way to get there than a lot of people.

    This attitude stifles progress. It's not really "pragmatism" given the limited time available. Not exactly the same but look up MLK's speech on the "white moderate" for a great analog.

    • ddilrat on 07/10/2023 - 02:55
      +1

      I don't think it stifles progress. We're investing a lot of money to research and make the solution cheaper so the price of everyday goods and energy doesn't skyrocket. As I said, it can be done right now, but I don't think the average person is willing to pay 10x more for anything containing steel or using most forms of transport.

      • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 09:40
        -1

        "so the price of everyday goods and energy doesn't skyrocket."
        Thanks I just spat cereal all over the keyboard

      • afoveht on 07/10/2023 - 15:54

        Reducing consumption is free - even a discount if you think about it. This is on consumers as much as it is on providers.

  • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 04:23
    +6

    I have no idea what you're banging on about OP.

  • JIMB0 on 07/10/2023 - 05:29
    +6

    I find a lot the content on LinkedIn cringeworthy. Just look up a colleague who is totally useless, often they'll have a profile selling themselves as the most innovative, hardest working person ever.

    • ddilrat on 07/10/2023 - 06:10

      Such a truth

  • iforgotmysocks on 07/10/2023 - 07:38

    I think they are pretty dank and are slaying it. No cap

  • Sinnerator on 07/10/2023 - 08:46

    behind the scenes what evils are Fortescue doing? this is probably just a PR smoke screen for them

    • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 09:41
      +1

      Twiggy is a snake oiler, of the highest order. Everything he does is a smokescreen,IMHO.

  • saltypete on 07/10/2023 - 08:56
    +1

    It makes a cringeworthy issue of the fact that the heatwaves we are going to be experiencing in parts of OZ due to climate change will kill vulnerable people. Not well done at all.

    But it is related to the need for decarbonisation - and the slower we are to get on the right side of this we are all going to suffer the consequences of the way we have built our energy systems. The previous decade of w@nkers have made the transition more interesting……..

  • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 09:33

    Waste of effort. Unless we breed less humans immediately we are just baling out the leaking lifeboat with a chopstick

  • EightImmortals on 07/10/2023 - 09:46
    -3

    Still chasing Annette Zero?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ramz-22wOAk

  • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 09:47

    OP are you also 'suspicious' that climate change is a real thing?

    • ddilrat on 07/10/2023 - 11:43
      -1

      Nah I'm not. Just know a lot about how electricity is generated and consumed. The average person on the street is pretty ignorant to the reality of our energy system and the current price of going %100 renewable

      • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 12:36

        Back in late 2000's ALP govt went down the rd of reducing energy by adopting a house auditing system based on more comfort,lower bills etc. FFWD to every LNP govt since and now we are greedy electricity consuming pigs with every gadget we can grab. You cannot reverse behaviour like that.Let alone undo that behaviour has delivered climate wise. Compare energy consumption per household /per capita over the last 3 decades.Now there's a push to 'electrify' even more, and that's before we have STOPPED gas and coal energy production.
        If you want to get rich before the inevitable go into headstones with the tag line, "I wish my grandchildren were alive to see this headstone. Thankyou LNP"

      • freefall101 on 07/10/2023 - 13:34

        What is the cost of going 100% renewable? I know a lot about how electricity is generated and consumed and the key issues are ones we need to deal with regardless of going renewable because we have an aging coal fleet. Whether we do it now or in 2040 doesn't really matter, the expense is going to be incurred anyway.

        The average person on the street is pretty ignorant to the reality of our energy system - we're hamstrung by a complete lack of a plan. Companies are more than willing to build cheap solar and wind, but there's no guarantee they'll be allowed to sell it to the grid (unlike the coal plants, who have zero curtailing to deal with). There's no requirements to build any firming so each company is taking the cheap way out of not doing it - because to do so would make them less competitive. The grid itself is being hamstrung by a handful of special interest groups that whinge endlessly about everything.

        • ddilrat on 08/10/2023 - 04:09
          +1

          People don't understand that building new solar and wind only doesn't solve the problem at all

          • freefall101 on 08/10/2023 - 14:11
            +1

            @ddilrat: Are you sure about that? A lot of people have been very vocal about building high capacity transmission and batteries, it's in the media quite a lot.

            Building new solar and wind also does contribute to solving the problem. We need to have the supply to cover 100% of our daily needs at a minimum and overbuilding cheap solar and wind will be a part of that. There's just a lot more we need to do in terms of transmission and storage.

            • ddilrat on 08/10/2023 - 23:42

              @freefall101: You're right. A lot of transmission and storage required to make the power reliable. That's where the costs start to rise. Of course building some new solar helps too but unless you bet the large scale transmission and storage right then it will become limited very quickly.

  • mskeggs on 07/10/2023 - 10:48
    +1

    I get it that people are wishing that reducing the impact of climate change isn’t too costly, but it is a very bad problem quite different to what we are used to.
    If we are very successful and meet the goals of the IPCC things will get only quite a bit worse.
    It isn’t the case they will then get better, that will take several lifetimes.
    So, unfortunately, being pragmatic about the costs isn’t a conservative opinion, it is one that will deliver considerable harm.
    We’ve seen plenty of climate problems already in the form of droughts, fires, storms, floods. These are locked in to get worse for several decades even if we are completely successful, so any slow down will add bigger and bigger problems.

    • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 10:59

      We are literally toast. At some point the level of humans and our activity can no longer be balanced by the basic climate moderators like vegetation and stable oceans.The madness that we can continue anywhere near what we already are and do is our destiny.
      Burning our way out of bushfires is amplifying the risk. There's now lunatics wanting more trees removed to make us safer. "Oh yes, nature has no end of generosity towards us special fkrs".
      Vegetation is a safety-net to climate stability and our lungs, but pretty soon even replanting will fail via fire,reduced rainfall or extreme heat. (or just by way of a fkn great endless suburb taking it's place.So the safety-net is shrinking every day.
      There's no short cut, all we have is multiple ugly outcomes, and we are clearly too stupid and greedy to listen accept and act.

      But hey, as the perpetrators, at least we talked about it……relentlessly

    • ddilrat on 07/10/2023 - 11:45
      -1

      Yeah but we're able to survive those climate problems pretty well and plan for them. I always think about it in terms of what will be best for my children's quality of life in the future and it's always a compromise between actual impacts from man made climate change vs amount of money left in your pocket to live after addressing man made climate change

      • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 12:42

        "we're able to survive those climate problems pretty well "
        Delusion. A week into pre-bushfire season we have a meeting chest beating about how we are more ready than ever for the summer ahead. Yet? Fires everywhere. Houses lost. Floods coming out of our arses all over the planet, and here the growing flood toll plan is what? Stay and be un-insurable and drown every other year? or move where there are not even any houses? Imagine where food prices are going among all of this+insurance+billions per annum lost in facing the threats. Who pays? (guess)
        Quality of life VS livable planet??. Like I said, if you think they will have a quality of life, sorry,you're dreaming. As for their kids.
        OMG.

        • ddilrat on 09/10/2023 - 10:16

          Delusional? I never said that our government was any good haha. Obviously our preparation for fires and floods could be much much better in this country.

          You seem to be quite passionate about this which is great. Just a piece of advice though, the Greta thunberg we all gonna die sort of approach only pushes the actual deniers away further

          • Protractor on 09/10/2023 - 10:25
            -1

            @ddilrat: You know that hollow feeling when the moment has passed…….
            Horse has bolted

      • mskeggs on 07/10/2023 - 22:17
        +3

        I suspect your children and their children will judge you very harshly for this. And I think you will find the costs of mitigating climate problems will greatly, greatly exceed avoiding them.

  • frondono on 07/10/2023 - 11:10
    +3

    It's all some PR BS. They would only do this if it was going to improve their bottom line.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/10/2023 - 11:34

      Why is Apple going carbon neutral? Must be very expensive to make their entire global operations carbon neutral. Is it just for the positive PR? Preparing for global backlash and taxation against carbon emissions? Or does Tim Cook and other Apple leadership actually care about their impact on the environment? Or maybe a mix of all these things. They would save a bundle by polluting as much as their competitors do.

      • frondono on 07/10/2023 - 12:55
        +1

        There factories are in China and India for a reason. Just look up foxconn. Slaves and environmental laxes.

      • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 13:16

        Their head offices in the US can claim "carbon neutral" for tax and carbon credits dollar bonuses …

        These bonuses don't apply to their Chinese and Indian plants, and guess what, there is no plans for these places to be "carbon neutral" ;)

        With companies, it's always about $$

  • Switchblade88 on 07/10/2023 - 13:02

    Solar panels are cheap, coal power and diesel is 90% of most industries' carbon contribution, and they to get claim brownie points by also saving themselves money.

    No different to putting solar panels on your house and driving an EV - it's nothing special.

  • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 13:13
    -7

    My guess for these type of things:
    They will overshoot this "decarbonisation", plants die below 150ppm, we are at 415ppm - there will be so much "decarbonisation" that it drops below 150ppm and we will no longer be able to grow crops without "greenhouses" and the poor starve before people realise it wasn't such a great idea ;)

    CO2 ppm vs Plant affects: https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/crop-management/co2-…
    (photosynthesis optimum efficiency at 1200ppm)

    • AustriaBargain on 07/10/2023 - 15:18

      Sounds like an easy problem to solve and a good problem to have.

    • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 15:54
      +5

      Jesus H Christ, I've heard of deniers but that a whole other fantasy you got going right there. 2 chances of going too far on decarbonising. None & SFA.
      We have less than zero chance of restoring the planet to pre industrial levels of C02, let alone sliding backwards.

      That's not a guess, it's a sci-fi plot after scoffing a page of LSD trips. Graeme Bird would be proud of you.

      • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 16:54
        -1

        How far pre-industrial?

        You do realize it was 3000+ppm a few million years ago, right?

        https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=co2+ppm+2+million+years+ag…

        • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 17:56

          Yep. Vegetation. Lots of it.Capitalism eats nature. Humans love wiping trees off the planet. Low co2 at the levels you're guessing,will never be an issue in the human species epoch.More chance of a matchstick bridge to the moon

    • deme on 07/10/2023 - 16:09
      +3

      Jesus Christ, you really think the will end up killing the planet because there isn't enough CO_2?

      Please let Dutton know https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?…

      This is the dumbest thing I've read and I started that covid thread.

      • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 16:55
        -2

        Of course, it's easy to dismiss when you have no clue the planet has been between 180 and 4000ppm in the past without humans:

        https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=co2+ppm+2+million+years+ag…

        • deme on 07/10/2023 - 17:02
          +4

          without humans

          4000ppm was during the Cambrian period 500 million years ago
          180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation two million years ago.
          2000ppm 60 million years ago
          1600ppm before the dinosaurs got wiped out.

          Start of 1800s it was 280 ppm.

          It is currently 421ppm
          The last time it was that high was….
          mid-Pliocene, 2 to 4 million years ago

        • SBOB on 07/10/2023 - 17:36
          +3

          it's easy to dismiss when you have no clue the planet has been between 180 and 4000ppm in the past without humans:

          And what was the sea level over some of these high CO2 level examples you provided ?

          It's easy to dismiss when you have no clue seems accurate

          • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 17:37
            -2

            @SBOB: Indeed, people fear CO2, when the next global catastrophe will be WW3 or a pole shift, long before we have to worry about CO2 :P

            But I am happy to sell excess CO2 credits to those that worry for major $$$ in the meantime!

            If you are not in a CO2 credit scheme already, try to get into one before you start getting taxed up the wazoo for said credits (and easy $$$$) …

            People see Bill Gates buying up farm-land and come up with some conspiracy regarding him wanting to control food supply, not realising how easy it is to make big $$$ from carbon credits currently (~$US20k per acre per year) :/

            • deme on 07/10/2023 - 19:19

              @7ekn00:

              People see Bill Gates buying up farm-land and come up with some conspiracy regarding him wanting to control food supply, not realising how easy it is to make big $$$ from carbon credits currently (~$US20k per acre per year) :/

              Please explain how I can get in on this

              • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 19:24
                -1

                @deme: Pass, dumbest thing you have ever read, remember?

                You were the high and mighty know it all, am sure you know all about the massive $$$ from harvesting / selling carbon credits, you don't need this dummy to tell you how to profit :/

                • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 19:58
                  +1

                  @7ekn00: How is Co2 going to shrink when even more vegetation collapses, every oxygen organism breathing out Co2 is still around, and volcanoes spew out cos to be sequestered by a dead ocean?

                  Once again the deniers either using past scenarios with a modern situation & circumstances , or pontificating about fantasy scenarios by using bubble and squeak logic, all while totally refusing to see and admit what's going on in front of their eyes.
                  LOL,ironic.

                • deme on 08/10/2023 - 11:00
                  +1

                  @7ekn00: You made the claim, and when someone called you on it, you go full cryptobro: DYOR.

            • SBOB on 07/10/2023 - 19:27
              +1

              @7ekn00:

              (~$US20k per acre per year)

              Any single legitimate reference to that $ value being ground in reality.
              I think you're over stating it by about a factor of 1000.

              • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 19:29
                -1

                @SBOB: Sure, if you and the rest of the high and mighty know it alls say so :/

                I am the dummy here, don't ask me how I make my money - the magical pixie faeries do it all ;)

                Can easily get $US250 per mtCO2e for removal projects like CCS, some pay up to $US300/mtCO2e

                • SBOB on 07/10/2023 - 19:34
                  +1

                  @7ekn00: So that's a no on actually backing up your made up value. No problem.

                  It's quite easy to see what carbon credits are worth an acre based on the agricultural content on that land.

                  Making up massively exaggerated numbers and trying to pass them off as any kind of fact, to support some kind of 'if you only knew' mentality definitely assists in backing up other statements of yours though.

                  I am the dummy here

                  • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 19:34
                    -1

                    @SBOB: If you say so, good thing you are clueless about CCS projects that yield up to $US300/mtCO2e

                    Easy to yield 10 mtCO2e/acre/yr with regenerate agriculture that see 10%+ sequestration year on year, especially in monocrop damaged soils

                    • SBOB on 07/10/2023 - 19:46

                      @7ekn00:

                      that yield up to $US300/mtCO2e
                      Easy to yield 10 mtCO2e/acre/yr

                      And by your maths, that's 20k/acre/year

                      (As you've edited to add explicit details)

                    • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 20:01
                      +1

                      @7ekn00: CCS is a scam. S C A M. It will(and mainly has) fail emphatically. The snake oilers in WA on the big US projects have captured a thimble full for a bout a gazillion dollars. You'd have to be a desperate disciple to swallow that evangelistic twaddle.The easiest cheapest carbon sequester is a healthy forest (trees) and a healthy ocean. There's no losers when the pipe bursts

                      • 7ekn00 on 07/10/2023 - 20:15
                        -1

                        @Protractor:

                        The easiest cheapest carbon sequester is a healthy forest (trees) and a healthy ocean

                        Nope, easiest and cheapest is ruminant animal poop on monocrop damaged soil, then have that damaged soil measured and monitored by the regulatory bodies, easily a factor of 100x over trees (too slow to grow) and oceans (as nobody "owns" them)

                        • Protractor on 07/10/2023 - 23:44

                          @7ekn00: Utter BS, deluded BS. You , and your cohorts campaign of base ignorance is why humanity has no future and explains exactly why we will become extinct. The time-frame is the only question. None of you deniers has EVER explained what TF is in it for you other than childish insignificance.

                          BTW I have wasted too much time, too many years watching idiots online regurgitate this banal shit to continue giving you any more oxygen, so good luck Gar-Gra finding another ear to worm to infest

  • coffeeinmyveins on 08/10/2023 - 09:42
    +3

    as a general rule of thumb anything posted on LinkedIn is absolute hot garbage and should be ignored.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join