Hacker News Reader

Comment by InitialLastName | Hacker News Reader

It's worth keeping in mind that Al Jazeera (as the state-funded news outlet of an extremely wealthy state that is built entirely and existentially on the sales of oil) may not be unbiased on this particular analysis.

View on HN

It appears to be decrying the ongoing sale of oil:

"The supposed energy transition that has been undertaken has seen renewable energy production expanded, but there has been no indication that oil and gas are being substituted and ultimately phased out."

If I was an oil company executive, I would want carbon offsets to actually work, because they could enable my business to function for longer. Am I getting this wrong?

They don't have to actually work. Just seem for long enough to work, until I have made enough money.

> until I have made enough money

Does this ever actually happen? Like have you made 'enough' by the time you become CEO of ExxonMobil?

No but you die eventually, and then it doesn't matter to you.

Just for accuracy's sake, most of Qatar's wealth isn't oil but natural gas. It is kind of a nitpicky point, but it does lead to understanding some of the political/economic things going on in the Middle East.

Al Jazeera generally has editorial freedom.

I would generally trust Al Jazeera about anything apart from news about Qatar, simply because unlike western networks Al-Jazeera doesn't have to care about pleasing advertisers, and its evident in their honest Palestinian coverage(their reporters paid their lives for it).

They are only second to the BBC in terms of how many stations they have.

This video has details about how Al Jazeera works, and how a rare combination of state goals end up in probably the regions best journalism, to the point other middle eastern countries boycotted Qatar to try to stop Al Jazeera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKx7TPGttSk

In his book, the climate wars, Michael Mann argues that oil companies want to deceive the public, they want us to give up thinking that action is useless.

In that sense climate deniers and climate pessimists are on the same side: do nothing, business as usual.

> Vijay Kolinjivadi is a Writer with Earth Negotiations Bulletin, as well as a post-doctoral Fellow at the Institute of Development Policy (IOB) of the University of Antwerp. He is a U.S. national and has focused on assessing biodiversity and ecosystem service-based policies, especially ""payments for ecosystem services"" for the better part of a decade.

Al Jazeera may not be unbiased, but it seems the author is not on Qatar's payroll.

So he wrote the article for free?

What GP is saying is that he wrote the article without monetary retribution from Al Jazeera. He was paid by someone else (one of his employers) to write an opinion piece published by Al Jazeera.

It's not uncommon in academia.

The whole point of offsets is to allow fossil fuel consumption to continue.

Your first take is a straight ad hominem instead of going counter-arguing then content itself.

Yes they might be state-funded, but are they claiming accurately?

Gas not oil, but the point remains.

Yea, instead we should trust the people who invested trillions into “green” energy to remind us how cities are falling into the ocean and how we are doomed unless we do what they say (no matter how little those changes affect the data they are presenting as evidence they are right)

Honestly, there’s been a lot of lies and fraud in the green movement. There’s never any suggestion that our actions will produce specific results in a measurable way. We’re just always being fed one fear mongering tactic after another.

carbon offsets being a lie. most recycling being dumped. corporations having unfettered plastic usage while you’re demanded to use a paper straw…

Face it, at this point big oil has a more honest reputation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com