Oil giant BP commits to reaching 'net zero' emissions by 2050

Polycount

TS Evangelist
Staff member

2050 is certainly a long way away and might initially sound a bit too generous, but when you consider what BP's entire business involves (oil and gas), it almost seems like a pipe dream. Regardless, BP seems confident in its ability to hit that target. In a press release published today, the company announced ten climate-related goals, half of which center around the company's own operations, with the other half focusing on helping "the world" reach net zero emissions as well.

Two of the aims are quite similar: BP wants to reach net zero on all of its operations by 2050, as we said before, but it also specifically mentions a desire to reach net zero on "carbon in BP's oil and gas production on an absolute basis" by the same year.

Furthermore, by 2050, BP will try to cut the "carbon intensity" of the products it sells and the methane intensity of its operations by 50 percent. It will lay the groundwork for the latter much earlier, though -- methane measurement tech will be installed at all of BP's major oil and gas processing sites by 2023. Surprisingly, BP also says it will increase the "proportion of investment" it funnels into non-oil and gas businesses over time (no deadline for that, though).

BP's aims to "help the world get to net zero" are all considerably less ambitious, and a bit more vague. It'll perform more "active advocacy" for policies that support net zero emissions, and it will "launch a new team" to help world governments, corporations, and even entire countries "decarbonise." We don't know what, specifically, either of those aims (or the other three mentioned in the release) will entail, however.

Although BP's latest announcement will almost certainly be viewed with significant skepticism by some, at the end of the day, it's the outcome that matters. If BP truly does reduce its emissions or offset them significantly, that's all the better for green energy and climate activists.

Permalink to story.

 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
That's not a very ambitious goal, given that the world will probably have stopped buying fossil fuels to produce energy by then.
30 Years! That doesn't sound like being committed to me.
Exactly. This sounds like BP is marketing an image where they are actually concerned that their main product causes serious pollution.

There's a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale, by BP, too! :laughing: I am number one in line waiting to buy it. :facepalm:
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Learn to be a fruititarian You'll be so energized that you want need an outside energy source. :p

Actually, fruit is the closest to clean carbon that the body can consume and with very little ash, while meat is the dirtiest and with more ash. If the ash isn't cleaned out, it has a detrimental effect on your health. Fruit burns cooler and doesn't require much processing while meat is denser requires lots of energy to process. Your body temperature with fruit is symbiotic to tropical life while the heat created burning meat is symbiotic to polar life. Fruit also cleanses your pipes, the lymphatic system-our sewage system and meats clogs it. Mixing the two- dissimilar ash is even worse. When you eat meat, eat alone. You can mix it with non-starchy vegetables. At any rate, fruit-citric acid fruits are required two clean the ash up. The lymphatic system is where cancer occurs. Bacteria helps to clean this sewage system and process process the wastes. Take heed, I'm saying something very important here. Think antibiotics and cancer. Search the internet memory hole. The truth is out there.

Fossils fuels, like meats, are dirty fuels. Each has to be broken down to their smallest of particles in order to be even processed for energy, and of course ash is the result. Think about a campfire. You put in kindling, it burns faster and there's less ash, especially if it's less denser wood. The meatier woods, so to speak, burn longer and if more dense, burns even longer and hotter. Fruits are the cleanest of fuels for the body, while sunlight would likely be the cleanest for energy with no ash as a result. The materials used to capture sunlight energy would be the focus and open for debate, because those materials wouldn't necessary translate to being the cleanest. Sunlight energy can be harnessed in at least 3 ways: light, thermal, and electric. Oh, and we already know about the effect the sun's having on plants and on our skin. There's 2 more. Carbon is still the sun's energy in a round-about way. So it's no wonder why people began worshiping the sun.

The earth is a system of generation and decay. It can be here for almost forever long after we've bit the dust so the Climate Change/Global Warming politics is a purely a selfish endeavor on mankind. Whether it's fruitless or meatless remains to be seen. The debate really isn't just about climate change per say . It's really about how we are going to manage our environment for long term existence. Are we going to be a team player with the earth or is the earth going to cut us from the team.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
The earth is a system of generation and decay. It can be here for almost forever long after we've bit the dust so the Climate Change/Global Warming politics is a purely a selfish endeavor on mankind. Whether it's fruitless or meatless remains to be seen. The debate really isn't just about climate change per say .
Heck of a straw man argument there.

It's really about how we are going to manage our environment for long term existence. Are we going to be a team player with the earth or is the earth going to cut us from the team.
There will be no fruit or meat if there are no pollinators. Evidence is out there of the decline of pollinators.
https://wisconsinbumblebees.entomology.wisc.edu/about-bumble-bees/bumble-bee-declines/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters

So far, I'd say the Earth is warming up for a cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn and Danny101

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Heck of a straw man argument there.

There will be no fruit or meat if there are no pollinators. Evidence is out there of the decline of pollinators.
https://wisconsinbumblebees.entomology.wisc.edu/about-bumble-bees/bumble-bee-declines/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters

So far, I'd say the Earth is warming up for a cut.
And there lies the poisons. As I was saying, there's more to it than just a warming earth. Pollinators are dying and far me , is the for me, it's a more immediate and greater threat. A more comprehensive response is necessary. We have to stop thinking in small terms as capitalism versus socialism and there's pros and cons to both. The world is changing. We can't go on as we always have.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
And there lies the poisons. As I was saying, there's more to it than just a warming earth. Pollinators are dying and far me , is the for me, it's a more immediate and greater threat. A more comprehensive response is necessary. We have to stop thinking in small terms as capitalism versus socialism and there's pros and cons to both. The world is changing. We can't go on as we always have.
Changing the argument to a style of eating, IMO, does not help especially when people, in the US anyway, waste something like 40% of they food they buy. https://www.nrdc.org/issues/food-waste

If you want to talk food, perhaps the conversation should be changed to production practices rather than style of eating. Take, for instance, The Three Sisters Method where it is possible to reduce or eliminate energy sucking fertilizers (that require fossil fuels to produce) and dangerous insecticides by cultivating in a manner that synergistically employs the natural ability of plants to both fertilize and repel insects.

And there are people out there successfully employing resource conserving farming practices. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/provide-food-and-water-sustainably/food-and-water-stories/farmers-forefront-soil-health/ And this story does not even mention how there are some Mexican farmers that have successfully implemented farming practices similar to the Three Sisters method for their livestock as well.

Not to mention that there is at least one study out there (sorry, the link escapes me ATM) that specifically states that small farms practicing methods like The Three Sisters have the capability to meet future demands for food on a world-wide basis.

As I see it, some people, especially who subject themselves to talking points without verifying them, need to be constantly reminded that there are things going on like a world-wide decline in pollinators that are linked to climate change no matter how many times they have listened to the often false information they have been fed in their daily talking points fix.
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Changing the argument to a style of eating, IMO, does not help especially when people, in the US anyway, waste something like 40% of they food they buy. https://www.nrdc.org/issues/food-waste

If you want to talk food, perhaps the conversation should be changed to production practices rather than style of eating. Take, for instance, The Three Sisters Method where it is possible to reduce or eliminate energy sucking fertilizers (that require fossil fuels to produce) and dangerous insecticides by cultivating in a manner that synergistically employs the natural ability of plants to both fertilize and repel insects.

And there are people out there successfully employing resource conserving farming practices. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/provide-food-and-water-sustainably/food-and-water-stories/farmers-forefront-soil-health/ And this story does not even mention how there are some Mexican farmers that have successfully implemented farming practices similar to the Three Sisters method for their livestock as well.

Not to mention that there is at least one study out there (sorry, the link escapes me ATM) that specifically states that small farms practicing methods like The Three Sisters have the capability to meet future demands for food on a world-wide basis.

As I see it, some people, especially who subject themselves to talking points without verifying them, need to be constantly reminded that there are things going on like a world-wide decline in pollinators that are linked to climate change no matter how many times they have listened to the often false information they have been fed in their daily talking points fix.
I can imagine every conversation with you have turns into an argument of sorts ole wise arrogant one. In your attempts to win, you'll just ignoring a truth that has health implications that people can actually use, right now. I know this because I've experienced it, the hard way. A truth that our health care system is corrupt, full of lies, and costing common people their money and lives. I can only imagine what else they're lying about. I was comparing energy in a way that people can understand and a new way of thinking about it comprehensively without being Preachy! such as yourself. I hear ethanol is pretty clean, hint hint. Our bodies practically run as ethanol machines and what is fouling it out? All the things you mentioned are nice and worthy to look into, no doubt, and I'll certainly give you credit for that. But apparently, these days people just like to argue for argument sake and they wonder why they have a hard time convincing people to their points of view. With all of the rampant obesity, we obviously aren't having a problem producing food.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
I can imagine every conversation with you have turns into an argument of sorts ole wise arrogant one. In your attempts to win, you'll just ignoring a truth that has health implications that people can actually use, right now. I know this because I've experienced it, the hard way. A truth that our health care system is corrupt, full of lies, and costing common people their money and lives. I can only imagine what else they're lying about. I was comparing energy in a way that people can understand and a new way of thinking about it comprehensively without being Preachy! such as yourself. I hear ethanol is pretty clean, hint hint. Our bodies practically run as ethanol machines and what is fouling it out? All the things you mentioned are nice and worthy to look into, no doubt, and I'll certainly give you credit for that. But apparently, these days people just like to argue for argument sake and they wonder why they have a hard time convincing people to their points of view. With all of the rampant obesity, we obviously aren't having a problem producing food.
Like I said, as I see it, you are changing the subject. Now its an ad-hominim attack.

As someone with a health issue, I am well-aware of the issues with the health system. Many times in my past, I have engaged in practices that doctors have said were crazy only to have what I was doing touted several years later as the best way to treat my condition.

I am glad that you found your way to living a more healthy life. However, these changes on a small scale by people who buy into them will do little for the overall environment. The old saying " You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" comes to mind, as well as it does with the climate argument.

I found the link I was looking for http://www.etcgroup.org/whowillfeedus

If you want to change the argument from fossil fuels to health issues, fine. As I see it, doing so encourages people to overlook the greater effects of fossil fuel usage such as the decline of pollinators. Not everyone out there understands the potential effects. Not to mention it is off-topic.

Personally, I don't think you like that someone challenged you on changing the argument from fossil fuels to health. That is what is known as a straw-man argument - regardless of how healthy it makes those who are capable of hearing your message.

Best wishes to you. May you live a long and healthy life.

EDIT: BTW - dietary needs are specific to individuals. What works for you may not work for someone else. This is yet another thing that the medical industry is just starting to discover.
 
Last edited:

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Due to all the variables, It's really a much bigger discussion than can be made in soundbite form and I'm only going to spend a limited amount of time on the subject. Comparatively, what we burn as fuel for energy relates just as much to the health of the planet, as the food we eat as fuel relates to the health of our bodies. Anything that burns has an ash or a byproduct that must be dealt with in some way, notably cleaned up. They do correlate.

The cleaner the fuel, the better for the environment on the planet and in our bodies. That is something that a common person can understand and the lens that helps me see to the problem to begin with. That is my perspective. whether anyone wants to share it or not. That's why I'm all for cleaner fuels because I experience what dirty fuel does to my own body, including the amazing ability of my body to self-heal after course correction. The healing process isn't necessarily pleasant. The toxins are still active during the cleaning and some are still dormant, And I'm not trying to remove it all at once. That would not be good.

That's why I don't share the crisis factor view of Climate Change at this moment. Does that mean I'm ruling out the possibility of remaining a skeptic? Not necessarily. I've had a Climate Change moment within my self, so I can relate. But as long as we are taking steps towards course correction and cleaning up the ash, then our planet can and will showcase it's amazing ability at self-healing,

There was a story out not too long ago talking about bacteria that is eating and feeding off of radiation at Chernobyl. What an amazing planet we live on. The disagreement is in the threshold and I don't believe we've reached that doom and gloom moment and we don't need to throw economies into dissarray in order to do so. Quite similar in the way that a person who tries to detox too fast. It's taken a long time to get here and it's going to take a long time to get out. If we try to go too fast, I believe it can cause much more harm than good.

I'm a lot more thoughtful than I can ever express here and many of my ideas and statements fall far short of that metric. That's why I like analogies because they showcase truths without going into extensive explanations. For instance, look at the atom and the solar system. The similarities are striking, yet at different scales. The organization works in similar ways and also transfer energy in similar ways.

As for the pollinators, I'm aware of that issue. Many causes I believe: disease, infections, chemical poisoning, and even RF has been looked at. So there are a lot of issues on the table. Tired of funding war and ready to fund peaceful solutions.
 
Last edited: