Such wondrous ignorance

It’s time for these denials of responsibility to end. BP is responsible for the oil it sells. No one else is. And on that basis it is clear it has no intention of being a net-zero carbon company.

Reasonable adults think that if we burn a litre of petrol then we’re the people – having done the burning – responsible for the pollution stemming from the burning of that litre of petrol.

Snippa insists that it’s BP responsible for his drive to the shops.

No doubt Helios is to blame when he gets sunburnt at the beach, not his own damn stupidity.

14 thoughts on “Such wondrous ignorance”

  1. I thought the Oxford bursar’s strategy was good. If his college’s students wanted to reduce CO2 emissions he’d obligingly turn off their central heating. He made the offer knowing perfectly well that they are a bunch of dishonest, self-indulgent hypocrites.

  2. And on that basis it is clear it has no intention of being a net-zero carbon company.

    As me Mam used to say, “thank fuck!”

    Unfortunately I’m hearing from my petroleum engineering pals that the sector is expecting big bucks for some sort of retarded carbon capture nonsense. Literally billions to squirt an inert trace gas into subterranean rocks instead of creating anything productive. We’d be cheaper using old school weather-appeasance techniques, involving stone circles and the Wicker Man.

    What’s the economic term for the opposite of value-add?

  3. I think if anyone needs further evidence of the continuing decline of Murphy’s mental faculty they could do worse than to look at the comments section on that link – I’m increasingly of the opinion that his entire persona is a satirical creation of rare genius. Surely nobody in reality could be this incompetent and utterly ignorant on almost anything on which they care to opine and yet be convinced of their own near infallibility? Even he cannot be that stupid in reality….

  4. Waitrose are responsible for their customers getting fat, or getting food poisoning because they are something two weeks past it’s use by date.

  5. Using his logic, here’s Richard Murphy’s alternative VAT system.

    VAT charged on all sales B2B or B2C (and probably if he could enforce it C2C as well). No exemptions for finance etc.

    No-one able to recover VAT on their purchases.

    What a complete suppurating b3llend

  6. By this logic, BP are also responsible for saving all the lives of those using or receiving medical equipment involving plastics, of protecting wildlife where rangers drive jeeps to counter poachers, and for any and all carbon captured in their abandoned wells. I doubt this line of argument is going to win many backers, so we’ll have to chalk the whole thing up as a logic error.

  7. ” And on that basis it is clear it has no intention of being a net-zero carbon company.”

    If it is claiming it’s going to be, then we should sell BP and fast.

    However, if a carbon tax is to be applied, the obvious best place to do it is at extraction and at extraction alone. Then it’s priced in everywhere else and we don;t have to fuck about with the whole rest of the economy. Do it once in a place where it will be least expensive and difficult to apply – keep the attendant bureaucracy to a minimum.

  8. We should also recall that Murphy has declared he is a terrorist by explicit support of Extinction Rebellion- his stupidity now openly out there

  9. @Tim W

    Ritchie is following Gov’t orders:

    – Supermarkets responsible for litter, food waste…
    – Food sellers responsible for obesity/starvation
    – Capitalist profiteers responsible for high energy/elec prices
    – blah…
    Nothing ever buyers fault


    After having a look, you’re absolutely correct

    Anna Birks February 13 2020 at 9:01 am says:
    I am not ‘lobbying’ for anyone. I have no interest other than as a concerned citizen and I am disappointed in your cynical and dismissive response. You seem to do that with any point of view different from your own and any question you can’t answer

    In the west we have the luxury of choice because we can afford it. In the developing world millions have better lives but the cost has been increased CO2. We in the west seem to be saying it isn’t a cost worth paying. If you are saying that, you’d better have a good plan to convince those developing nations.

    It is easy to make sweeping statements “let’s all go green” but the devil is in the practical detail and I fear from your response that practical detail is not your strong point. Am I now being cynical?

    @February 13, 2020 at 6:45 pm +1

  10. Offsetting for the Rich[ie]: Kill the poor to save the planet Kill the poor to save the planet

    In the Telegraph, Charles Moore says the new ‘citizens’ assemblies’, reported with predictable enthusiasm by the BBC’s ‘Environment Analyst’ Roger Harrabin, are ‘being won over by the idea that they (and presumably all of us) should have a “personal carbon allowance”.’

    The allowance would be officially regulated, to limit what we consume and allow good people to sell their underused allowance to bad people, who will have to buy it from them, Moore adds.

    I have long toyed with the idea of selling someone my unused ‘personal alcohol allowance’ – officially set at 14 units per week in 2016 – but so far, sadly, I have found no takers.

    This new ‘carbon offsetting’ idea sounds even better; perhaps the Government can go even further, and arrange for poor people to die so that the rich can live even longer.

    Already they are teaching the poor how to give up not only meat, eggs, fish and milk – which will undoubtedly speed their demise – to forget any prospect of owning a car, affordable central heating (once gas boilers are banned) or the warmth of a holiday abroad.

    The rich teaching the poor to scrimp, so that tomorrow they may equally selflessly propose to teach them how to die, so that worthier souls than them may live – all for the sake of the planet.

    Too true

    ‘Eco-warriors’ need to stop ‘scaring’ people that the world will end

    Shame he devalues message with “[Man Made] Climate Change is a real threat”; No, if warning, it’s an opportunity to produce more for less

  11. What’s the economic term for the opposite of value-add?

    Depends on which side of the pond you are on.
    Labour on one side, Democrat on the other

    EU south of the Channel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *