Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[mattis117]

Tell me more.

Perth swelters through hottest September day on RECORD

WA’s capital city is sweltering through an unusual heat spike, with temperatures in Perth on Wednesday hitting 34.9C — breaking the record for highest temperature in September.

www.perthnow.com.au

This isn't a political thread, so I'll keep it semi-short.
This is an embarrassing reply for you. Arguing that we shouldn't have Woodside as a sponsor because we're in for a hot summer, clap clap. I could write you an essay on how the three climate drivers surrounding us are all in a dry/hot phase for us. Climate change doesn't cause this, but it does affect its maximums.

As others have stated, you can believe in human influenced climate change and also understand the absurdity of campaigns like 'Just Stop Oil', which if were listened to and acted upon, would literally be the end of modernity.

Look around you. Perth/WA exists as a community because of the resources sector, there is little else. Everything here in one way or another supports that. Mining and oil and gas are our only primary industries.

We're on a train that moves inexorably forward. We can't undo what has been done by stopping and expect to survive. The only thing we can do is accelerate energy production and develop new sources of energy to replace hydrocarbons, and simultaneously develop technology that can reverse some of the effects.

Just stopping = we fail as an intelligent species. Accelerating = maybe we are able to solve our problems technologically before catastrophe. Climate change does not equal end of species, it only means a more uncertain future.

Energy companies, like it or not, are part of the solution, they are not the enemy. They simply deliver what our society has asked for.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Sponsors only sponsor things if it benefits them? I look forward to hearing more about this revelation.

 

[Rob]

The problem is we don't know what it is going to do. Some of the models are pretty dire though.

You don't decide to play Russian roulette because there's a 5/6 chance you'll be fine, if you have a choice not to play at all.

So net zero at any cost then?

 

[Mags98]

Climate change is definitely real. Net Zero and other catchy programs are mostly scams that will make small number of people very rich though

unlike the current fossil fuel industries right?

 

[Mags98]

So net zero at any cost then?

the path were on right now is going to lead to a completely ****ed world anyway soo... yes?

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I would like Freo to be sponsored by a medical cannabis company. We have historically had green in our logo etc... so we should honour that history.

 

[88mph]

This isn't a political thread, so I'll keep it semi-short.
This is an embarrassing reply for you. Arguing that we shouldn't have Woodside as a sponsor because we're in for a hot summer, clap clap. I could write you an essay on how the three climate drivers surrounding us are all in a dry/hot phase for us. Climate change doesn't cause this, but it does affect its maximums.

As others have stated, you can believe in human influenced climate change and also understand the absurdity of campaigns like 'Just Stop Oil', which if were listened to and acted upon, would literally be the end of modernity.

Look around you. Perth/WA exists as a community because of the resources sector, there is little else. Everything here in one way or another supports that. Mining and oil and gas are our only primary industries.

We're on a train that moves inexorably forward. We can't undo what has been done by stopping and expect to survive. The only thing we can do is accelerate energy production and develop new sources of energy to replace hydrocarbons, and simultaneously develop technology that can reverse some of the effects.

Just stopping = we fail as an intelligent species. Accelerating = maybe we are able to solve our problems technologically before catastrophe. Climate change does not equal end of species, it only means a more uncertain future.

Energy companies, like it or not, are part of the solution, they are not the enemy. They simply deliver what our society has asked for.

Aligning with Woodside goes beyond the known climate damage they are doing to the planet.

Woodside today pulled into line for lack of consultation with Traditional Owners. Then there's the impacts on migrating whales.

Woodside’s seismic blasting approval for Scarborough gas quashed

Woodside’s plan to conduct seismic blasting off the West Australian coast has been halted indefinitely after the Federal Court found the regulator did not have the power to approve it.

www.watoday.com.au

 

[Rob]

the path were on right now is going to lead to a completely ****ed world anyway soo... yes?

Ah great then. Let's put billions of people back into poverty and reverse all the gains that have been made in the last hundred years. That should make humanity better!

 

[ubiquitous226]

Aligning with Woodside goes beyond the known climate damage they are doing to the planet.

Woodside today pulled into line for lack of consultation with Traditional Owners. Then there's the impacts on migrating whales.

Woodside’s seismic blasting approval for Scarborough gas quashed

Woodside’s plan to conduct seismic blasting off the West Australian coast has been halted indefinitely after the Federal Court found the regulator did not have the power to approve it.

www.watoday.com.au

That's incorrect, the legal challenge was based on how NOPSEMA approved the environment plan and whether they had the power to impose a condition for further consultation.

It's actually more a reflection on our regulatory landscape, the review and approval process should be determining if sufficient safeguards are in place and if not what needs to happen.

In reality all that's happening is people with a certain agenda are using the legal system to cause delays.

 

[Halfbaked]

I love this argument. My son firmly believes we should get rid of Woodside.
While he drives a large 4 wheel drive, has just built a 5 bedroom, one study house and a massive shed out the back. Which just 2 people live in.
Up to 200 tons of CO2e was used to build the house, maybe more.
Yet I'm old and don't understand the problem.

 

[Alfonz]

That's incorrect, the legal challenge was based on how NOPSEMA approved the environment plan and whether they had the power to impose a condition for further consultation.

It's actually more a reflection on our regulatory landscape, the review and approval process should be determining if sufficient safeguards are in place and if not what needs to happen.

In reality all that's happening is people with a certain agenda are using the legal system to cause delays.

Spot on. I am a geo that works in the industry, and I can say with 100% certainty that the companies are doing everything they can to do things properly and consult all relevant people. One problem is the definition of "relevant" is so wishy washy that it could be impossible to consult every single relevant person, and Santos found that out the hard way with their Barossa project.

There is also an increasing trend of stakeholders refusing to engage when the oil companies reach out to them. Then they go to court and cry to the media that they weren't consulted. It's become ridiculous. Stakeholders in Denmark have to be consulted for things going to happen on the NW Shelf. The process to do anything is now 18-24 months, and with the likely threat of court action, it won't be long before companies don't bother anymore. They are doing all they can now, getting NOPSEMA approval, and that's still not enough.

There's good reason why Santos have looked to Alaska and Woodside bough out BHP's assets in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the outrage from the greenies about what is happening here, Australia is now the least attractive part of the world to operate. Everywhere else is booming with activity because they have realised the harsh reality that the transition (which is 100% necessary) can not happen overnight.

As for the seismic impact on marine life. I won't pretend there aren't any negative consequences. Unfortunately it is hard to do anything without something being impacted. Wind farms for example take out millions of birds and would cause more environmental damage than seismic surveys. The whale thing is also propaganda. Surveys have to operate outside whale migration windows while still monitoring the area closely, and operations will cease if whales/fauna are found anywhere nearby.

On a side note, offshore rigs are usually teeming with marine life. But you won't hear any greenies or activisists talking about it, instead they will wait to unleash some more outrage if the likes of Woodside try to just leave their rigs behind instead of fully removing them.

The new use for abandoned oil rigs

As offshore oil and gas platforms come to the end of their working lives, the remarkable ecosystems beneath the waves come into their own.

www.bbc.com

 

[Big Animal]

I love this argument. My son firmly believes we should get rid of Woodside.
While he drives a large 4 wheel drive, has just built a 5 bedroom, one study house and a massive shed out the back. Which just 2 people live in.
Up to 200 tons of CO2e was used to build the house, maybe more.
Yet I'm old and don't understand the problem.

maybe you shouldn't have had your son and then saved the world a greater drain on resources and increase of CO2

 

[Halfbaked]

It certainly would have saved the drain on my resources.

 

[Gimme the Fyfe]

Others have articulated the point much more eloquently. I'll do my part.

"Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?"

"Yes I would, Kent."



"

 

[Chicken Treat]

There are worser ethical companies out there sponsoring clubs, including Freo.

My job is dependent on mining and exploration so I can't be too outraged, especially given I have been dealing with a prolonged career rut before this role.

 

[Spirit Level]

Great news! Taking money from oil and gas companies is literally the opposite of funding climate change

 

[poshman]

There's a

There's a further step beyond this... Financially ingratiate as many people/groups as feasible, create a sense of dependency, so you increase a feeling of coalition with your continued operating at max profit.

The whole idea of "being grateful for their sponsorship". Screw that. They wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them.

Principally your last sentence would lead to a very sad world.

Don't be grateful for good service at a restaurant - they only do it because they are paid.
Don't be grateful to the postie driving around in all weather - she only does it becaue she benefits.

Should we continue?

 

[MadMac]

unlike the current fossil fuel industries right?

I never claimed they’re clean. And I’m pretty sure they don’t claim that they’re clean either (although they do claim that they’re not “as dirty as portrayed”, if that makes sense which is still bad.
That can’t be said of “clean energy sector”. Majority claim that their products have zero emissions or close enough or that they’re leading towards net zero emissions. And that’s simply wrong.
I mentioned before here, anyone who thinks electric vehicles are environmentally friendly has no idea on what environmental impact lithium and nickel mining has on this planet

 

[MadMac]

There's a

There's a further step beyond this... Financially ingratiate as many people/groups as feasible, create a sense of dependency, so you increase a feeling of coalition with your continued operating at max profit.

The whole idea of "being grateful for their sponsorship". Screw that. They wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them.

There’s * all benefit advertising them to your average footy punter other than trying to look good in the eyes of the community. It makes no difference anyway because people already have their views on their business and feel accordingly. It’s not like they’re making burgers and hotdogs that they’re trying to flog off to as many customers as possible.
Sponsorship is in the budget and that money is getting spent anyway, regardless who the recipient is.

 

[Joao]

So net zero at any cost then?

That's a massive strawman.

I'd settle for banning resource companies giving contributions to political parties and let the rest take care of itself.

 

[Rob]

That's a massive strawman.

I'd settle for banning resource companies giving contributions to political parties and let the rest take care of itself.

It's not a strawman, it's the whole dilemma. There are genuinely people that would ban all fossil fuels no matter the cost.

Most reasonable people accept the transition, but also accept that there would be a massive incomprehensible cost to doing so in the short term that would result in a huge increase in human suffering, likely far greater than the suffering such a policy is intended to reduce.

The reality is that the number of deaths resulting from weather events continues to drop, in direct contradiction to the claim that it's going up to the extent that it's going to kill us all. The reason for that is a combination of human ingenuity, innovation and prosperity. If our prosperity declines, our ability to deal with the weather drops away as well. And more people will die.

 

[ubiquitous226]

That's a massive strawman.

I'd settle for banning resource companies giving contributions to political parties and let the rest take care of itself.

Banning contributions is one thing, but that doesn't change the reality our economy is heavily reliant on resources.

Take BHP's argument against the same job same pay laws, it's essentially it'll reduce our profit which will reduce our dividends which will impact many people.

 

[Joao]

It's not a strawman, it's the whole dilemma. There are genuinely people that would ban all fossil fuels no matter the cost.

Most reasonable people accept the transition, but also accept that there would be a massive incomprehensible cost to doing so in the short term that would result in a huge increase in human suffering, likely far greater than the suffering such a policy is intended to reduce.

The reality is that the number of deaths resulting from weather events continues to drop, in direct contradiction to the claim that it's going up to the extent that it's going to kill us all. The reason for that is a combination of human ingenuity, innovation and prosperity. If our prosperity declines, our ability to deal with the weather drops away as well. And more people will die.

It's a strawman because you're trying to associate it with me and I literally never brought up net zero at any point.

I'm not here to argue but I don't agree with any of your basic premises. Agree to disagree.

 

[Rob]

It's a strawman because you're trying to associate it with me and I literally never brought up net zero at any point.

It was a question dude. Not an attempt to put words in your mouth.

You did use Russian roulette as a metaphor though.

 

[Joao]

It was a question dude. Not an attempt to put words in your mouth.

You did use Russian roulette as a metaphor though.

This isn't going anywhere if you truly believe what you posted so lets not waste time.