In other news, bullet manufacturer calls gun control ‘irresponsible.’
Yeah god forbid his net worth go down by a few tenths of a percent.
We need to seriously, as a society, treats this level of greed as a serious, in patient, mental illness that requires treatment.
Friend, you’re absolutely correct. And while I love punctuation as much as the next person, you need to ease up on the commas almost as much as we need to ease up on fossil fuel consumption.
It’s grammatically correct.
No it’s not.
We need to seriously, as a society, treats this level of greed as a serious, in patient, mental illness that requires treatment.
- “As a society,” could be placed at the beginning of the sentence instead of as an interjection, which eliminates the need for one comma.
- The verbs are conjugated incorrectly; “treats” should be in the infinitive, since “need” is the active verb.
- “In patient” should be hyphenated.
- “In patient” should not have a comma after it, since it is the last adjective in a list. “Mental” is not an adjective in this instance, because it is part of the noun.
- Using “seriously” and “serious” in the same sentence is repetitive and unnecessary.
- “That requires treatment” is redundant, as OP already said “treat " and “in-patient,” which implies “that requires treatment.” Personally, to clear things up I would uncouple"in-patient” from “serious mental illness,” which takes care of several of these issues.
- If you ever see four commas in a non-compound sentence, it’s almost certainly done incorrectly. At the very least, the structure could probably be cleaned up.
Here’s what the sentence could look like:
As a society, we need to diagnose this level of greed as a serious mental illness requiring in-patient care.
See? Cleaned it right up. Now it’s down to fewer words and fewer commas while conveying the exact same information.
Remember folks: “when in doubt, leave it out.”
I just meant the commas, which are placed correctly as they are. The only thing I’m unsure of is if “seriously” should have a comma before it, too. Anyway, I also enjoy pedantic arguments.
Remember when everyone got together online and decided that we love people who point out grammatical errors in social media?
It’s a good thing that I don’t comment on social media in order to feel loved.
Not just greed, but the sheer level of sociopathy you have to possess to be a CEO. That level of “don’t give a fuck about anyone except shareholders” will be the downfall of humanity.
No, Just need to kill them and process the remains into fertilizer. Then seize their wealth and use it to fund counters to climate change.
The comments conflict with the recommendations of climate scientists and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who has called on the fossil fuel industry to “drive, not obstruct” the transition to renewable energy. Burning fossil fuels is the biggest source of the carbon emissions blamed for global warming.
Even Sultan al-Jaber — who is head of Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., one of the world’s largest oil producers, as well as president of this year’s U.N. climate talks — urged the oil and gas industry to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by or before 2050.
2050?! Between more intense hurricanes, floods, fires, and lack of fresh water I don’t know how many humans can even survive that long.
As a member of the Global Climate Coalition, Shell helped sow doubt about climate change. Now that the globe has seen the highest temperatures in 100,000 years, Shell wants to argue it’s irresponsible to cut oil production now?
It’s because Shell and other fossil fuel companies helped publish research that challenged climate science (and continue to do so) that it’s irresponsible to cut oil production now.
They had their chance to do the right thing. They didn’t.
Fuck them and their operations.
Yes, I’m somewhat aware of the consequences. But if we don’t make hard decisions to kill dangerous companies like fossil fuels now…well…given the damage they case, it may not matter: millions, maybe billions, will still probably die.
But the leopard said it doesn’t like eating faces
He meant it would be irresponsible because his compensation package would suffer. (https://apnews.com/article/shell-ceo-pay-energy-prices-record-profits-3f9b9bb08d1cd88a11d0ab550ffdc053)
deleted by creator
Shell supports Russia in their aggression on the people of Ukraine. I already have a personal boycott against them. Like Unilever, they’re making MORE profits than ever from their operations in Russia in spite of making noises about curtailing business there.
If anyone doubts their thirst for blood money that’s just another data point.
It would be irresponsible, to their stock prices and executive bonuses.
Won’t somebody think of the poor CEOs?
I find it very responsible.
I mean, he sucks, but I also don’t disagree that having a bridge solution during OPEC fuckaround times is a good idea. Supply cuts aren’t fun, period, especially when we can’t influence them whatsoever (since it seems dollar hegemony is going bye-bye at some point):
There’s probably a decent solution to temporarily boost and maintain domestic oil production while also feeding green R&D, whether that’s in the form of a tax, credit, government package, or full-blown turn-Shell-into-an-SOE; all of its years vs. months, I think. Bottom line, I think it’s a more complex solution than “fuck this guy”.
My idea was a mandatory investment in green energy. Like, if you want to extract X barrels of oil, fine but you have to put up Y new windmills. You want to burn X tons of coal? OK that’ll be Y new solar panels please. It’s different from a carbon tax since the energy company can still own the windmills and whatever and of course sell the electricity from them. One day they’ll look around and realize most of their profits now come from green energy, might as well spend some lobbying money on that.
This is actually a proven idea in net new real estate development involving wetlands and protected acreage; you can build on wetlands, but for every acre you displace, you have to create two acres, and both the plan and results are audited.
To your point, the end result of this - in many cases - is to simply build elsewhere due to the considerably higher costs. I think a model similar in energy would pay dividends rather quickly - most likely, we’d see Shell, EM, CP, etc. rapidly transition to renewables from an imposed cost perspective.
You bring up lobbying - definitely the major hurdle. Fortunately, if you go read these guys 10k’s, I think the shift is inevitable, they’re just artificially pumping the brakes to adhere to some kind of amortisation timeline of investments they’ve already made… which unfortunately, is super frustrating.
Y’know what else is irresponsible? Funny story.
