this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2026
486 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

88677 readers
3696 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jpreston1986@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Exxon did not respond to requests for comment, but it has denied misleading the public or investors about climate change.

That's a lie.

“We believe the legal and factual theories set forth in these proceedings are meritless and represent an inappropriate attempt to use the court system to usurp the proper role of policymakers in addressing the societal challenges of climate change.”

Read: We only want the people we have direct control over (policy makers they bribe) to have any say in this matter.

Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”

That's their own scientist calling them liars.

With the threat of climate action looming, he (Sprow) wrote, the company’s research and development on “Greenhouse” should have two primary goals: “Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal),” and “Preserve Exxon’s business options.”

Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.

With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, “it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort.” Sprow proposed “supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center.”

That's their CEO telling them that "now that climate change is out of the bag, we need to focus on protecting our business (you know, as opposed to the only planet we have), and we need to engage in criminal subterfuge to either bribe a climate modeling expert, or insert one of our own agents into the field."

“continue to question the scientific basis and cite the high economic cost” of policies to address climate change and “avoid pressures to negotiate a compromise.”

That's a quote from a meeting of oil executives, laying out the framework of their carpet denial of climate change. The strategy is something you've seen before. Disrupt action by "just asking questions, while bringing up the cost" and "avoid accountability."

This is the same strategy republikkkans use to deny you healthcare and justice. Except in this case it's being weaponized to help them achieve wealth by destroying our only planet.

[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

They used another tactic that I didn't notice until one of the commenters on the Ars article/forum pointed it out:

Promising good stuff that's not too close (~5 years) so you'll remember it and say, "Hey, where's my ?!" but not so far away (~25+ years) that you'll say "That's way too far you need to fix this shit now." Apparently it was used in Soviet Bloc countries a lot to keep the population from revolting, and now I'm seeing it everywhere in our society. In this case, the O&G companies said things like, "Sure! We'll be generating all your fuel with algae in ~15 years and then we'll never need to drill again!" and "We're developing amazing carbon capture technology that's a mere ~15 years away and will repair all the damage we're not doing!"

Ars Technica might be owned by Conde Nast, but it has a really smart userbase on average, so I tolerate that fact.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 2 hours ago

There was a ClimateTown video that mentioned more on the algae. It didn't start out quite as a lie, but more a hopeful prediction that they could be both the heroes in finding a "clean" solution, and it would supply the amount they thought. It's when they threw money at it and it kept failing very badly that they just kept lying on its promise instead of just admitting it was too good to be true.