Microsoft employees spent years fighting the tech giant's oil ties(grist.org)
grist.org
Microsoft employees spent years fighting the tech giant's oil ties
https://grist.org/accountability/microsoft-employees-spent-years-fighting-the-tech-giants-oil-ties-now-theyre-speaking-out/
102 comments
Microsoft provides consultants that happily show you how to use their tools.
I doubt this is a case of some random engineer at an oil company buying a few VMs on a website.
I doubt this is a case of some random engineer at an oil company buying a few VMs on a website.
Dont know BP specifically, but in no normal big corporation can 'some low level engineer' just go and create accounts at will unless said provider is already used quite a bit. There are approved providers, getting stuff from them goes through responsible team which should ask many relevant questions.
The thing people have a problem with is that Microsoft is claiming that it will be carbon neutral by 2030 but it can't be true so they're just bullshitting.
I was at Microsoft as a blue badge when they intro'd the carbon neutral by 2030 initiative and the first employee to ask about how this was possible was politely swatted down by Nadella in a live company meeting.
"why are we pressuring private companies at all?"
Because what Microsoft is doing is unsustainable but Nadella and the c-suite are too busy buying back stock to care. Microsoft doesn't actually make anything anymore - they just acquire technologies and extract the value and move on.
The OpenAI acquisition will take down Microsoft because to stay on the trajectory Nadella has bet the farm on would require Moore's Law to still be increasing compute mips/watt but that ended a while ago.
By the time these companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta) realize that AI will require geometrically more compute when only a linear increase in MIPS/watt is all we are going to get out of silicon.
That none of these firms are building silicon photonics labs to be the first to make this incremental leap away from CMOS shows that they're only vaguely aware that AGI isn't anywhere close to being a reality with any silicon based technologies.
Using bullshit technology, aka AI, to look for unknown amounts of oil while telling the press the date you will be carbon neutral is just unethical garbage like so much else Microsoft does.
I was at Microsoft as a blue badge when they intro'd the carbon neutral by 2030 initiative and the first employee to ask about how this was possible was politely swatted down by Nadella in a live company meeting.
"why are we pressuring private companies at all?"
Because what Microsoft is doing is unsustainable but Nadella and the c-suite are too busy buying back stock to care. Microsoft doesn't actually make anything anymore - they just acquire technologies and extract the value and move on.
The OpenAI acquisition will take down Microsoft because to stay on the trajectory Nadella has bet the farm on would require Moore's Law to still be increasing compute mips/watt but that ended a while ago.
By the time these companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta) realize that AI will require geometrically more compute when only a linear increase in MIPS/watt is all we are going to get out of silicon.
That none of these firms are building silicon photonics labs to be the first to make this incremental leap away from CMOS shows that they're only vaguely aware that AGI isn't anywhere close to being a reality with any silicon based technologies.
Using bullshit technology, aka AI, to look for unknown amounts of oil while telling the press the date you will be carbon neutral is just unethical garbage like so much else Microsoft does.
I mean ... Chevron literally sold Microsoft their data center to become Azure southcentral.
These are not "low level engineers", these companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars with Azure.
And all the other clouds. And Wal-Mart and AT&T and ... big companies spend big bucks.
These are not "low level engineers", these companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars with Azure.
And all the other clouds. And Wal-Mart and AT&T and ... big companies spend big bucks.
> Or is the argument that every cloud company should independently decide not to serve this particular industry? If that's true, why are we pressuring private companies at all? Wouldn't it be more effective for the government to sanction these forbidden companies, instead of relying on so many independent profit-motivated companies to voluntarily lower their profits?
Yes, it would be more effective but in the absence of any adults in the rooms of government, I don’t blame regular folk from using whatever little power they might have to try to effect change, albeit however futilely. Our world is a dumpster fire and the ruling class seems fine with fanning the flames, so it is incumbent upon everyone else to fight in whatever ways available to them.
Yes, it would be more effective but in the absence of any adults in the rooms of government, I don’t blame regular folk from using whatever little power they might have to try to effect change, albeit however futilely. Our world is a dumpster fire and the ruling class seems fine with fanning the flames, so it is incumbent upon everyone else to fight in whatever ways available to them.
Americans have a very weird individualistic idea of what's acceptable when it comes to reining in Companies Behaving Badly:
- Individual action is acceptable (vote with your wallet)
- Government action is totally unacceptable (interference with the holy free market!)
- But, coordinated, collective individual action is also unacceptable (unions bad! organized boycotts bad!)
Consequently, the only way to punish companies that's acceptable to Americans is totally spontaneous, unorganized, grassroots actions by individuals. You can imagine how often that's successful. The only time it actually has a chance of working is when it's secretly organized (astroturfing). So, we Americans continue to run around individually complaining about bad corporate behavior, but are powerless to do anything about it because we've made all the effective mitigations taboo!
- Individual action is acceptable (vote with your wallet)
- Government action is totally unacceptable (interference with the holy free market!)
- But, coordinated, collective individual action is also unacceptable (unions bad! organized boycotts bad!)
Consequently, the only way to punish companies that's acceptable to Americans is totally spontaneous, unorganized, grassroots actions by individuals. You can imagine how often that's successful. The only time it actually has a chance of working is when it's secretly organized (astroturfing). So, we Americans continue to run around individually complaining about bad corporate behavior, but are powerless to do anything about it because we've made all the effective mitigations taboo!
> Consequently, the only way to punish companies that's acceptable to Americans is totally spontaneous, unorganized, grassroots actions by individuals.
And don't forget the caveat that if it's the wrong grassroots unorganized action, it's clearly a product of George Soro's money paying people to do things, and not their actual action.
And don't forget the caveat that if it's the wrong grassroots unorganized action, it's clearly a product of George Soro's money paying people to do things, and not their actual action.
Do you think it's the same people making the rules and feeling powerless because of the rules? Your writing gives that impression, but maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.
I honestly don’t know where it comes from. The Cold War with the Soviet Union didn’t help. We had decades of being told anything collective = bad, worker power/ownership = bad, government planning = bad. Society needs to be limited to “individuals acting independently.” The Soviet Union is gone, but our fear is still strong of everything that even remotely looks like communism. The Red Scare was a huge beneficial windfall for corporate power.
I saw a "conspiracy theory" that the only reason we saw quality of life improve in the west after ww2 and until a bit after the fall of the iron curtain is that western oligarchs feared the population would turn east and there would be red revolutions everywhere otherwise. The only way to beat the USSR was to improve quality of life in the west. Now that this threat is gone, there's no reason to keep a foot on the brake of welfare-capitalism. The population pays for the cockups (quantitative easing), while the shareholders take all the profits. This is the source of the growing economic inequality.
Every, and I mean every aspect of the economy has "ties to oil". Oil companies sell to willing buyers, many of whom turn around and point the finger at the oil company. It's an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that never stops surprising me. I believe in climate change for the record, and do believe we need to switch to sustainable energy, but the attitude of a lot of climate activists really rubs me the wrong way sometimes.
Do you know that comic? https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
That's you.
There needs to be a comic for dorks who hate oil just because, despite the fact that we desperately need it for modern life. By all means develop new energy if you can. But antagonizing oil companies for serving society the stuff they need is fucking stupid.
Lol I've seen that before. Actually the iPhone example is a very clear case of hypocrisy. My only point is that I'm sure Microsoft has plenty of other clients whose profits are only 1 or 2 degrees removed from oil extraction. Any level of participation in capitalism is likely increasing oil extraction indirectly. It is the primary energy source of economic activity. Shutting down the oil companies will not speed up development of alternative energy sources (which we already have tech for, like nuclear, but the general public never got over their fear of it).
A lot of this seems to be like that Ralph kid from The Simpsons; "I'm helping!" Well-intentioned? Absolutely. Actually helpful? Meh.
At one company I worked for someone suggested that we should all stop using metaphors linked to cars and internal combustion engines, to stop normalizing these things and help fight climate change. And look, I don't like this car-centric design; I don't even have a driving license. But how does this stop climate change? "I'm helping!"
This was shot down pretty hard by the CEO and pretty much everyone else by the way.
At one company I worked for someone suggested that we should all stop using metaphors linked to cars and internal combustion engines, to stop normalizing these things and help fight climate change. And look, I don't like this car-centric design; I don't even have a driving license. But how does this stop climate change? "I'm helping!"
This was shot down pretty hard by the CEO and pretty much everyone else by the way.
Cars and the transportation sector are the primary consumers of oil. I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car.
We should be pointing out the car centric transportation systems we have and work to fix them. We shouldn’t be encouraging things like suburban sprawl that increases car dependence. Reduce car usage, and you will reduce oil consumption.
We should be pointing out the car centric transportation systems we have and work to fix them. We shouldn’t be encouraging things like suburban sprawl that increases car dependence. Reduce car usage, and you will reduce oil consumption.
> I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car.
No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop?
Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"
No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop?
Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"
Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes.
You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
> Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes.
I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.
I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.
Yes, that's true
But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption
Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)
But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption
Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)
Not sure where this idea comes from that cars are a “small percentage”, but here’s what I could find: “light-duty vehicles (cars, small trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles) 54.2%” of energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels
> ... energy usage in the transportation sector of the US.
Climate change isn't limited to one country.
Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
Climate change isn't limited to one country.
Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
The reason I highlighted the % of transportation that’s personal vehicles is to make it clear how much impact it has on the overall usage. 15% of total consumption is not a small percentage by any means, at least not by my estimation of small.
That 15% is in the USA, a country that has largely shipped it's manufacturing overseas.
Globally it's estimated to be a smaller percentage overall, although it does seem that it still is closer to 10% according to this: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans
So yes, maybe it's not "tiny".
My point still stands, I think. We are focusing much more than 10-15% of our overall efforts on optimizing a slice that doesn't seem like it will contribute improvements relative to our efforts
Globally it's estimated to be a smaller percentage overall, although it does seem that it still is closer to 10% according to this: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/cars-and-vans
So yes, maybe it's not "tiny".
My point still stands, I think. We are focusing much more than 10-15% of our overall efforts on optimizing a slice that doesn't seem like it will contribute improvements relative to our efforts
I don't think it's "tiny" as OP mentioned, sure, but to my mind (and as I mentioned in another comment), that leaves a remaining 85%. 85% is a portion that I'd be comfortable using the word "most" for - eg, most of the energy usage in this country comes from sources other than light-duty vehicles. I think that's the point OP was making, word choice (eg, "tiny") aside.
There’s a good opportunity for those other use cases as many of them are centrally located and so with investment that could be in the form of government subsidies (if they could every agree on anything) to upgrade factories and utilities, etc. And at 85% utilization, you’re correct that it’s a big opportunity.
Light-duty passenger vehicles are 15% of primary energy use. They are not a "tiny percentage", they are in fact the second-largest category (after manufacturing).
15% might not technically be "tiny", sure, but that means there's a remaining 85% of energy being used in other areas, which is large enough to still supports GP's sentiment/point, IMO.
I couldn't agree more. We should have high speed rails interconnecting the top 30 most populated cities in the US. There's no reason why we couldn't still build something like that.
We have something better than high speed rail connecting the 30 most populated cities - planes. We could save some on fuel by using rail, but the bigger advantage would be converting shorter trips (people AND freight) to rail.
That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?
Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
Decent amounts of short-haul US passenger rail is not electrified, those would be good places to start. Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, Cascades, etc are all diesel powered and could be electrified for reasonable costs.
The feds should get ahead of it and declare a rail electrification standard so that as it builds out it's all compatible.
Electrifying a thousand miles of track in the middle of nowhere that sees one train a day is nowhere near as worthwhile as electrifying busy corridors.
The feds should get ahead of it and declare a rail electrification standard so that as it builds out it's all compatible.
Electrifying a thousand miles of track in the middle of nowhere that sees one train a day is nowhere near as worthwhile as electrifying busy corridors.
It depends on what you compare it to.
Electric trains powered by solar and wind? Sure, saves 90% fuel compared to planes (the trains still have support, lubricant, etc that will use some fuel, but sure, assume 100%).
But globally it can't be more than about 12% of the total CO2 (see https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport ) - and that is GLOBAL, trains across the Atlantic are harder to build.
And that's only 12% of total CO2 from transportation - which itself is less than half of the world-wide emissions.
6% of world-wide would be noticeable, but that is only if every plane is replaced by an electric train. The trillions that even attempting some of that would cost could be better spent elsewhere, likely.
Electric trains powered by solar and wind? Sure, saves 90% fuel compared to planes (the trains still have support, lubricant, etc that will use some fuel, but sure, assume 100%).
But globally it can't be more than about 12% of the total CO2 (see https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport ) - and that is GLOBAL, trains across the Atlantic are harder to build.
And that's only 12% of total CO2 from transportation - which itself is less than half of the world-wide emissions.
6% of world-wide would be noticeable, but that is only if every plane is replaced by an electric train. The trillions that even attempting some of that would cost could be better spent elsewhere, likely.
Try removing baseball and sports analogies, and the entire C-suite would be crippled forever.
Your last sentence uses a metaphor that promotes firearms or weapons of war. You should consider steering clear of that ;)
This is so god damned stupid that it hurts.
>It’s true that Microsoft is taking numerous steps to address the sustainability of its own operations. But for years, the company has also furnished fossil fuel giants with cloud computing services and specialized software tools powered by machine learning and AI in order to streamline and automate their operations.
Let's make the extraction of the life blood of all industry on the planet less efficient, less streamlined, less clean. And do let us all know how you plan to build the next Azure data center without using fossil fuels dug out of the ground and processed plastics.
>It’s true that Microsoft is taking numerous steps to address the sustainability of its own operations. But for years, the company has also furnished fossil fuel giants with cloud computing services and specialized software tools powered by machine learning and AI in order to streamline and automate their operations.
Let's make the extraction of the life blood of all industry on the planet less efficient, less streamlined, less clean. And do let us all know how you plan to build the next Azure data center without using fossil fuels dug out of the ground and processed plastics.
Why do you think that cloud computing would lend to the cleanliness or efficiency of their operations in a way that reduces the environmental burden? What stops them from using such services to extract oil more efficiently in the sense that they just produce more externalities faster?
>extract oil more efficiently in the sense that they just produce more externalities faster
You need fossil fuels to get off of fossil fuels, you need regulation, the entire planet working on this, etc. Making the process LESS efficient is not going to help at any point. Let's start blowing up the equipment used to dig coal out of the ground so we can go back to doing it by hand like in the early 1900s, and let's start unscrewing the bolts in the machines at the factories, let's all quit at CAT and never build another digger...
You need fossil fuels to get off of fossil fuels, you need regulation, the entire planet working on this, etc. Making the process LESS efficient is not going to help at any point. Let's start blowing up the equipment used to dig coal out of the ground so we can go back to doing it by hand like in the early 1900s, and let's start unscrewing the bolts in the machines at the factories, let's all quit at CAT and never build another digger...
> you need regulation
Bingo, except government and industry are so closely related now they resemble a circular human centipede, so we can’t rely on that.
Bingo, except government and industry are so closely related now they resemble a circular human centipede, so we can’t rely on that.
When some oil was “$0”, what stopped me from buying it for free, and using grant money to “bury it” (safely store or really dispose of it) and simply never burning it? Every idea in environmental management needs to be explored, because the issue is that serious.
Because oil is fungible, this has the exact same effect as limiting supply: price will increase. There are plenty of other ways to increase oil price (taxes being the simplest) that don't require creating new waste disposal sites. Burying the oil also has the nasty side effect of increasing demand, so there's a chance that, for example, OPEC will just extract more oil to meet the added demand. And extracting oil isn't "free" from an emissions perspective.
It's way more complicated than "the price of oil hit $0".
An option was due, and the holder of the option needed to accept delivery. Because most people who trade in options don't actually want the underlying asset, it was just some trader with no interest in actually owning "oil". It's like if you had barrels of crude oil in your basement; you'd probably let someone pick it up for free too.
But likewise, if you had barrels of crude oil in your basement, then yes you could just let it sit there and never burn it. The trouble is that most people with the ability to accept delivery of industrial quantities of crude oil also want to use it. Also the price rarely dips that low, because the people extracting it do so in order to make money.
An option was due, and the holder of the option needed to accept delivery. Because most people who trade in options don't actually want the underlying asset, it was just some trader with no interest in actually owning "oil". It's like if you had barrels of crude oil in your basement; you'd probably let someone pick it up for free too.
But likewise, if you had barrels of crude oil in your basement, then yes you could just let it sit there and never burn it. The trouble is that most people with the ability to accept delivery of industrial quantities of crude oil also want to use it. Also the price rarely dips that low, because the people extracting it do so in order to make money.
If oil costs zero its utility is zero because no one wants it. You've solved the problem!
they're referring to that time spot prices went negative during the early pandemic when nobody was driving, demand was way down, and storage suddenly became a problem.
We need to rub at least two brain cells together to conceive of anything resembling a viable plan.
"Buying" some small amount of barrels during a rare market anomaly, then burying them in the ground is supposed to accomplish what exactly?
Great, you buried 50,000 barrels of crude - congratulations. Now what are you going to do about the 20,000,000 barrels[1] the US will consume tomorrow? Look, oh no, your buried oil leaked into the water table!
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pipelin....
"Buying" some small amount of barrels during a rare market anomaly, then burying them in the ground is supposed to accomplish what exactly?
Great, you buried 50,000 barrels of crude - congratulations. Now what are you going to do about the 20,000,000 barrels[1] the US will consume tomorrow? Look, oh no, your buried oil leaked into the water table!
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pipelin....
And probably spent more energy transporting and burying that oil than you would have simply burning it or using it... Its insanity how people do not understand the basic principle that any work requires energy. Its why plastic recycling does so poorly, it often more efficient to make new plastic or burn it, than to reprocess it.
Safety, for one. Technology helps prevent spills.
I don't buy that Microsoft's involvement does much to prevent spills. Exxon, for example, cares about spills mostly as a function of 1) regulation, 2)reputation risk and 3) employees who do care about things being done cleanly. I guess Microsoft's software could maybe enable the employees a bit more, but fundamentally the reasons they are safe have to do with incentives, not technology.
That is not a good faith argument. People who support sustainability want less extraction, not no extraction. Sustainability means extracting less so it is doable over a long period of time.
When the costs of something go up, people and businesses are more eager to explore alternatives.
Driving down the costs of fossil fuels hinders the adoption of alternatives.
Driving down the costs of fossil fuels hinders the adoption of alternatives.
I mean, I think there is a reasonable argument here: Microsoft has corporate environmental goals and then as a matter of profit takes money from interests working in direct opposition to those goals. It does smack of hypocrisy, no?
I'd like to debate a few of your other points: "Let's make the extraction of the life blood of all industry on the planet less efficient, less streamlined, less clean." - People often make this argument and I agree: oil is the _current_ life blood of all industry. The oil companies would like to keep it that way and have for years fought a very effective campaign to avoid responsibility for the externalities of oil production and consumption. They have slowed or blocked progress towards a _future_ where oil is not the lifeblood of industry. That is what we really need to get to as a species, don't you agree? There are no physics-based reason why some other technology couldn't power our lives. There are cost-based reasons why oil is currently the winning solution. This only works because we don't price the externalities, the _future_, yet to be paid cost of oil consumption. Fossil fuel companies have stood in the way of progress on renewables and exterality pricing for decades now.
I'd like to debate a few of your other points: "Let's make the extraction of the life blood of all industry on the planet less efficient, less streamlined, less clean." - People often make this argument and I agree: oil is the _current_ life blood of all industry. The oil companies would like to keep it that way and have for years fought a very effective campaign to avoid responsibility for the externalities of oil production and consumption. They have slowed or blocked progress towards a _future_ where oil is not the lifeblood of industry. That is what we really need to get to as a species, don't you agree? There are no physics-based reason why some other technology couldn't power our lives. There are cost-based reasons why oil is currently the winning solution. This only works because we don't price the externalities, the _future_, yet to be paid cost of oil consumption. Fossil fuel companies have stood in the way of progress on renewables and exterality pricing for decades now.
This has big, "you want to criticize capitalism while you buy things with money" energy. Consumers are by in large product takers who have to choose between the products that are on offer. There's no market segment for "same product but without fossil fuels."
I try to avoid buying plastic. Does that mean I don't buy anything made with plastic? No, of course not. That's ridiculous I couldn't buy 90% of products from the grocery store. But when given the opportunity will I pay for an option that doesn't use plastic, yes. It's not the 1800s you don't have to be pure of heart to want to affect positive change.
I try to avoid buying plastic. Does that mean I don't buy anything made with plastic? No, of course not. That's ridiculous I couldn't buy 90% of products from the grocery store. But when given the opportunity will I pay for an option that doesn't use plastic, yes. It's not the 1800s you don't have to be pure of heart to want to affect positive change.
It's a clear case of all-or-nothing thinking. Calling a CEO's statement "gaslighting" because it implied something does not do anything help their credibility.
Yep. It's genuinely shocking to me that people lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that oil extraction is a function of society as a whole. Oil companies are the ones who get their hands dirty, but society as a whole benefits and encourages the oil extraction. Take factory farming as another example - you can blame the factory farms, but good luck telling the average American they'll have to pay 3x as much for chicken and hamburgers because the animals were treated well.
Isn't this, then, an example of taking responsibility for the harm caused by fossil fuels? Microsoft benefits from them, in this case, very directly by selling their services for a profit. Wouldn't Microsoft denying fossil fuel companies services be a way to deny benefits (profit) in order to discourage oil extraction?
I don't think anyone involved lacks the critical thinking skills to understand what you laid out - that our society encourages and depends oil extraction. So what's next? How do you move society to discourage and depend less on oil extraction?
I don't think anyone involved lacks the critical thinking skills to understand what you laid out - that our society encourages and depends oil extraction. So what's next? How do you move society to discourage and depend less on oil extraction?
It's not Microsoft's job to moralize about what businesses need service. They have no problem giving software to authoritarian murderers around the world by the way, yet they have a problem with providing software to an industry we all desperately need for at least decades to come?
These are people in said society operating on another part of the whole. They are not idly "blaming", they are attempting to directly increase the cost function to reduce the extraction.
Obviously you disagree with them taking action ("the average American" has to spontaneously demand 3x prices for resistance to be legitimate), but that has nothing to do with a lack of critical thinking ability in your political foes.
Obviously you disagree with them taking action ("the average American" has to spontaneously demand 3x prices for resistance to be legitimate), but that has nothing to do with a lack of critical thinking ability in your political foes.
> Oil companies are the ones who get their hands dirty, but society as a whole benefits and encourages the oil extraction. Take factory farming as another example - you can blame the factory farms, but good luck telling the average American they'll have to pay 3x as much for chicken and hamburgers because the animals were treated well.
The argument “we’re just doing the dirty work to give you what you want” is horse shit. They actively hid information about climate change for decades, they work to ensure continued subsidies to avoid actual competition, they work to add regulations to competing technologies and run disinformation campaigns. They work to entrench themselves so that “giving you what you want” is really “you’ll take what we give since we’ve undermined the alternatives”.
Same with factory farming. The only reason people think chicken and burgers should be 1/3 the true cost is because the four big ag companies have worked the government into subsidizing things and reducing labour laws, etc etc etc.
Honestly, when your argument starts with being an apologist for big corporations with a profit rather than social motive, I think you should check what first principles you are working with. Our society is a hunger games hellscape and it is because of whatever first principles you are using.
The argument “we’re just doing the dirty work to give you what you want” is horse shit. They actively hid information about climate change for decades, they work to ensure continued subsidies to avoid actual competition, they work to add regulations to competing technologies and run disinformation campaigns. They work to entrench themselves so that “giving you what you want” is really “you’ll take what we give since we’ve undermined the alternatives”.
Same with factory farming. The only reason people think chicken and burgers should be 1/3 the true cost is because the four big ag companies have worked the government into subsidizing things and reducing labour laws, etc etc etc.
Honestly, when your argument starts with being an apologist for big corporations with a profit rather than social motive, I think you should check what first principles you are working with. Our society is a hunger games hellscape and it is because of whatever first principles you are using.
I'm sure they did everything you describe and more. I'm well aware of how corporations externalize costs to increase profit margins, and I'm a huge proponent of stronger regulation and government involvement in corporate day-to-day. It's likely that we would agree on quite a bit. Where we disagree is on the solution to the problems society faces. The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil. This would have profound geo-political implications and would significantly weaken America's standing. Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop drilling for oil. Like it or not the only way out of this mess is further investment in technologoy and access to energetic resources. The government needs to be subsidizing construction of nuclear power plants in every state of the nation. It needs to be building solar farms all over the western US and hanging high voltage cables from coast to coast. It needs a train network like China. I could go on and on.
> The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil
> Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop
You are contradicting yourself - either the global economy won’t grind to a halt, because activist is ineffective, or activism is too effective?
The west should be cleaning up its own house and leading by example - instead it has spent decades pointing fingers at China and other countries shouting ‘you first’. Well, guess what, China is now worlds leading user and producer of eclectic cars, has electric busses and most of USA doesn’t. We are the ones behind now, and in fact neither you nor the media have realised it yet.
In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant. The Sputnik moment has already happened, you just aren’t watching.
> Saudi Arabia and Russia will never stop
You are contradicting yourself - either the global economy won’t grind to a halt, because activist is ineffective, or activism is too effective?
The west should be cleaning up its own house and leading by example - instead it has spent decades pointing fingers at China and other countries shouting ‘you first’. Well, guess what, China is now worlds leading user and producer of eclectic cars, has electric busses and most of USA doesn’t. We are the ones behind now, and in fact neither you nor the media have realised it yet.
In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant. The Sputnik moment has already happened, you just aren’t watching.
The US hardly screams at China at all, but China is completely fixated on the US (if media is anything to go by). The US will do things at its own pace like China does, picking at it as a competition is merely a saving face thing that doesn't really exist in the west.
Its only been a decade or so since China had all of those things. You would see multiple obviously imported Tesla Model S's in Beijing way before you saw even one BYD EV taxi. Then China invested in a short period of time and now they have much more than the US. But the time period was so short that China hardly has a moat in these areas.
> In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant.
We heard this before in the 1980s and that didn't pan out at all. This is just the 1980s again with China in place of Japan; China even has a much bigger real estate bubble than Japan ever did, the consequences will be similar if not worse. The same demographic crash is also coming to China, history is just a broken record.
Its only been a decade or so since China had all of those things. You would see multiple obviously imported Tesla Model S's in Beijing way before you saw even one BYD EV taxi. Then China invested in a short period of time and now they have much more than the US. But the time period was so short that China hardly has a moat in these areas.
> In the next 2 years it will become clear that the king is banked, and that the leadership is no longer with the west, and I am afraid the consequences for us will be significant.
We heard this before in the 1980s and that didn't pan out at all. This is just the 1980s again with China in place of Japan; China even has a much bigger real estate bubble than Japan ever did, the consequences will be similar if not worse. The same demographic crash is also coming to China, history is just a broken record.
China has 10x the population and impact of Japan; this is a silly comparison. Japan never had this large share of the world manufacturing
Doesn’t that just make it worse?
> The west should be cleaning up its own house and leading by example - instead it has spent decades pointing fingers at China and other countries shouting ‘you first’
This is inaccurate. The west has been cleaning up its own house and leading by example. While they could and should have done much more, western countries implemented emissions reductions measures long before demanding anyone else do it, and in fact for decades explicitly excluded China as a developing country from having to comply with these agreements.
As a result, western emissions have been declining for decades and, most importantly, became decoupled from GDP growth for the first time in history.
In the meantime China has dramatically surged its emissions, becoming the biggest emitter by far. India and Russia have also increased emissions substantially, becoming the third and fourth highest emitters. In fact, the entire EU now produces fewer carbon emissions than India, and only a little more than Russia.
If current trends continue, before long the top three emitters will be China, India, and Russia, and their trajectories remain worrying.
So any solution that doesn’t encourage those countries to also reduce their emissions is going to doom us all to accelerating climate change.
As for the moral argument, it’s no more moral for China, India, and Russia to emit all the pollution they can than it was when western countries did it. If anything, it’s even more immoral given that better technologies exist and we understand the problem much better.
This is inaccurate. The west has been cleaning up its own house and leading by example. While they could and should have done much more, western countries implemented emissions reductions measures long before demanding anyone else do it, and in fact for decades explicitly excluded China as a developing country from having to comply with these agreements.
As a result, western emissions have been declining for decades and, most importantly, became decoupled from GDP growth for the first time in history.
In the meantime China has dramatically surged its emissions, becoming the biggest emitter by far. India and Russia have also increased emissions substantially, becoming the third and fourth highest emitters. In fact, the entire EU now produces fewer carbon emissions than India, and only a little more than Russia.
If current trends continue, before long the top three emitters will be China, India, and Russia, and their trajectories remain worrying.
So any solution that doesn’t encourage those countries to also reduce their emissions is going to doom us all to accelerating climate change.
As for the moral argument, it’s no more moral for China, India, and Russia to emit all the pollution they can than it was when western countries did it. If anything, it’s even more immoral given that better technologies exist and we understand the problem much better.
> As a result, western emissions have been declining for decades and, most importantly
Most of our emission reduction was achieved by outsourcing manufacturing to China. We don’t get an award for that:
> Eu now produces fewer emission than India
Comparison of emissions should be done per capita - India is expected to emit more that EU, it has almost 3x as he population. The he idea that US should be top emitter forever when it’s only 300k people is absurd. Also EU has invested way more into cleantech than US has and has many times more production of these technologies than US does
Lastly - don’t lump Russia together with China and India - China and India are actively developing countries with active leadership. Russia is stagnant and a bit of a failed state. So there is no point of comparing with failed states.
Immorality is irrelevant - we will get rekt economically: EU is, right now, asking China to reduce production of electric cars and complaining that they are unfairly flooding the market
Most of our emission reduction was achieved by outsourcing manufacturing to China. We don’t get an award for that:
> Eu now produces fewer emission than India
Comparison of emissions should be done per capita - India is expected to emit more that EU, it has almost 3x as he population. The he idea that US should be top emitter forever when it’s only 300k people is absurd. Also EU has invested way more into cleantech than US has and has many times more production of these technologies than US does
Lastly - don’t lump Russia together with China and India - China and India are actively developing countries with active leadership. Russia is stagnant and a bit of a failed state. So there is no point of comparing with failed states.
Immorality is irrelevant - we will get rekt economically: EU is, right now, asking China to reduce production of electric cars and complaining that they are unfairly flooding the market
> Most of our emission reduction was achieved by outsourcing manufacturing to China. We don’t get an award for that:
That's a common fallacy and overly simplistic. EU reductions in emissions from power generation, transportation, agriculture, construction, and similar have all been reduced by similar proportions as those from industry.
> Comparison of emissions should be done per capita - India is expected to emit more that EU, it has almost 3x as he population. The he idea that US should be top emitter forever when it’s only 300k people is absurd. Also EU has invested way more into cleantech than US has and has many times more production of these technologies than US does
Even on a per capita level, China emits more per capita than the EU does, and not that much less than the US which is still reducing its per capita emissions, so it will likely surpass it soon. India, for now, emits less, but under current trends will surpass the EU on a per capita basis before long too.
Fact is, both the EU's and US's annual carbon emissions have been trending down for years now, whereas those of China and India continue to point sharply upward. It makes zero sense to focus all the attention and anger on the US and the EU while ignoring what will soon become the world's top emitters.
> Lastly - don’t lump Russia together with China and India - China and India are actively developing countries with active leadership. Russia is stagnant and a bit of a failed state. So there is no point of comparing with failed states.
Russia is one of the world's top five emitters of greenhouse gases, of course it matters.
> Immorality is irrelevant - we will get rekt economically: EU is, right now, asking China to reduce production of electric cars and complaining that they are unfairly flooding the market
I didn't say we should base this on immorality, I'm saying your argument is implicitly based on it and incorrect as a result. What matters is the volume of emissions, and unless we slow down the level of emissions from China, India, Russia, and others forming the top tier of emitters we're not going to be able to meet any good climate targets.
That's a common fallacy and overly simplistic. EU reductions in emissions from power generation, transportation, agriculture, construction, and similar have all been reduced by similar proportions as those from industry.
> Comparison of emissions should be done per capita - India is expected to emit more that EU, it has almost 3x as he population. The he idea that US should be top emitter forever when it’s only 300k people is absurd. Also EU has invested way more into cleantech than US has and has many times more production of these technologies than US does
Even on a per capita level, China emits more per capita than the EU does, and not that much less than the US which is still reducing its per capita emissions, so it will likely surpass it soon. India, for now, emits less, but under current trends will surpass the EU on a per capita basis before long too.
Fact is, both the EU's and US's annual carbon emissions have been trending down for years now, whereas those of China and India continue to point sharply upward. It makes zero sense to focus all the attention and anger on the US and the EU while ignoring what will soon become the world's top emitters.
> Lastly - don’t lump Russia together with China and India - China and India are actively developing countries with active leadership. Russia is stagnant and a bit of a failed state. So there is no point of comparing with failed states.
Russia is one of the world's top five emitters of greenhouse gases, of course it matters.
> Immorality is irrelevant - we will get rekt economically: EU is, right now, asking China to reduce production of electric cars and complaining that they are unfairly flooding the market
I didn't say we should base this on immorality, I'm saying your argument is implicitly based on it and incorrect as a result. What matters is the volume of emissions, and unless we slow down the level of emissions from China, India, Russia, and others forming the top tier of emitters we're not going to be able to meet any good climate targets.
> Well, guess what, China is now worlds leading user and producer of eclectic cars, has electric busses and most of USA doesn’t. We are the ones behind now, and in fact neither you nor the media have realised it yet.
The media has realized, unfortunately, hence the latest barrage of complaints about overproduction/dumping. Blinken and Yellen's speeches about that were pathetic.
The media has realized, unfortunately, hence the latest barrage of complaints about overproduction/dumping. Blinken and Yellen's speeches about that were pathetic.
> I'm a huge proponent of stronger regulation and government involvement in corporate day-to-day.
I agree, however we aren’t seeing this in any meaningful fashion, let alone the amount we need to be seeing it to stave off catastrophe. So given this context, I am all for citizen/employee protest in whatever way required to get things to change course.
> It's likely that we would agree on quite a bit. Where we disagree is on the solution to the problems society faces.
I agree with this. Sorry if my last post was a bit aggressive.
> The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil.
I agree with this, but the longer we kick the can down the road, the more urgent the situation becomes and the more drastic the medicine we’ll need to take. So while right now we can possibly get by with a phase out so long as we start getting much more aggressive on renewables, in 20 years we’ll likely be in a “we have to turn off the oil taps immediately” situation. Would’ve been nice if Exxon hadn’t hidden their climate change data in the 60s and given everyone a chance for a peaceful transition. But they didn’t, and so I support everyone refusing to work on energy projects.
I agree, however we aren’t seeing this in any meaningful fashion, let alone the amount we need to be seeing it to stave off catastrophe. So given this context, I am all for citizen/employee protest in whatever way required to get things to change course.
> It's likely that we would agree on quite a bit. Where we disagree is on the solution to the problems society faces.
I agree with this. Sorry if my last post was a bit aggressive.
> The solution is not forcing the global economy to grind to a halt by abruptly forcing oil companies to stop extracting oil.
I agree with this, but the longer we kick the can down the road, the more urgent the situation becomes and the more drastic the medicine we’ll need to take. So while right now we can possibly get by with a phase out so long as we start getting much more aggressive on renewables, in 20 years we’ll likely be in a “we have to turn off the oil taps immediately” situation. Would’ve been nice if Exxon hadn’t hidden their climate change data in the 60s and given everyone a chance for a peaceful transition. But they didn’t, and so I support everyone refusing to work on energy projects.
Microsoft should respond by closing their parking lots to all but EVs. I'm SURE that none of the green activist would ever drive an ICE vehicle while protesting big oil...riiight?
So then, the oil companies around the world will be able to trivially use Chinese services like Alibaba, further strengthening the Chinese economy at the expense of our own?
China will make the process as efficient as it wants. Remember, we live in a global economy with other players who don’t play by our rules, sanctions or not. And I assure you developing countries are onboard with the idea of oil extraction.
China will make the process as efficient as it wants. Remember, we live in a global economy with other players who don’t play by our rules, sanctions or not. And I assure you developing countries are onboard with the idea of oil extraction.
I wonder sometimes to what extent progressives (aka the left, "liberals", leftists, woke, etc.) and their agenda are just paid Chinese operatives and operations or the results of such.
A lot of progressive agendas have ultimately been to China's benefit at the cost of everyone else and especially Pax Americana.
A lot of progressive agendas have ultimately been to China's benefit at the cost of everyone else and especially Pax Americana.
I think you give people too much credit. Simple greed did that to America, it was cheap, dirty work, then more complex work, then high tech work, now coding and the last piece to fall will be r&d because of a simple rug pull.
Apple releases M4 and tsmc rips it off tomorrow. All done on the their (americas) dime because we outsourced the means of production.
As far as this… you got morons quitting their jobs over crap like omg the oil industry is using our cloud. Meanwhile the biggest death machine on the planet e.g. the US government literally has two private azure offerings fully services by Microsoft with dedicated staff, but that’s not sexy, I can’t quit over that and post it in my socials, because that would be unpatriotic. But Microsoft not being green enough for me to work there is a stand that I can brag about.
Apple releases M4 and tsmc rips it off tomorrow. All done on the their (americas) dime because we outsourced the means of production.
As far as this… you got morons quitting their jobs over crap like omg the oil industry is using our cloud. Meanwhile the biggest death machine on the planet e.g. the US government literally has two private azure offerings fully services by Microsoft with dedicated staff, but that’s not sexy, I can’t quit over that and post it in my socials, because that would be unpatriotic. But Microsoft not being green enough for me to work there is a stand that I can brag about.
I think most liberals are more anti-conservative values (misogamy, racism, xenophobia, anti-science, anti-education, homophobia, etc.) than pro-progressive policies.
So we’re having an economic argument, what does racism or xenophobia have to do with that?
Literally none of what you mentioned has anything to do with conservatism.
Hell, speaking as a Japanese-American (aka a racial minority), conservative people by far have treated me the fairest because they truly don't care about someone's race.
I mean actual conservatism, of course. Not "conservatism" often thrown around in these conversations to label out groups.
Hell, speaking as a Japanese-American (aka a racial minority), conservative people by far have treated me the fairest because they truly don't care about someone's race.
I mean actual conservatism, of course. Not "conservatism" often thrown around in these conversations to label out groups.
Those dirty liberals, not having blind nationalism and not wanting our government to fuck over another country with 1 billion living human beings just because we don't like their government.
Like good Lord, we're not at war with China. they're one of our biggest trading partners. The idea that we should be doing everything in our power to economically fuck them over isn't the argument you think it is.
"Oh no, we have to supply services to oil companies because if not, a business in China might make a sale?"
Like good Lord, we're not at war with China. they're one of our biggest trading partners. The idea that we should be doing everything in our power to economically fuck them over isn't the argument you think it is.
"Oh no, we have to supply services to oil companies because if not, a business in China might make a sale?"
Just because you deny that your state is—necessarily—a participant in a global game, doesn't make said game cease to exist.
The other players in the game only benefit from their opponents' state citizens increasingly expressing sentiments of concession.
The other players in the game only benefit from their opponents' state citizens increasingly expressing sentiments of concession.
I upvoted this article, not because of its significance or because I think it's valuable (in truth, I think it contains a fair amount of slant), but because I'd love to hear some critical discourse on its contents.
Good on these employees for sticking by their ethos, but I feel in terms of problems in the world right now, there are much bigger fish to fry that Microsoft is in a position to correct. This seems a bit like missing the forest for the trees.
Good on these employees for sticking by their ethos, but I feel in terms of problems in the world right now, there are much bigger fish to fry that Microsoft is in a position to correct. This seems a bit like missing the forest for the trees.
> Good on these employees for sticking by their ethos
I disagree. The improper use of political power is generally bad, even if it achieves good outcomes.
For example, if US threatened to sanction any country where tobacco could be sold to under 18s it might reduce the global cancer rate by some amount - but the damage to the global system of governance would outweigh any realistic benefit.
Similarly big tech companies have immense de facto power, but they should use it sparingly. Otherwise they undermine the parliaments, courts any other forums where energy regulation should legitimately be made.
I disagree. The improper use of political power is generally bad, even if it achieves good outcomes.
For example, if US threatened to sanction any country where tobacco could be sold to under 18s it might reduce the global cancer rate by some amount - but the damage to the global system of governance would outweigh any realistic benefit.
Similarly big tech companies have immense de facto power, but they should use it sparingly. Otherwise they undermine the parliaments, courts any other forums where energy regulation should legitimately be made.
What is the bigger fish in your opinion?
Well, in the context of a tech giant like MS, there are the bigger fish of privacy, security and e-waste. Eg how many otherwise perfectly good computers are about to be thrown out as junk in the next few years because MS refuses to loosen Win11 system requirements?
One would think that if these employees really cared about protecting the environment, they'd be arguing about things like that, which are much more directly tied to them than this indirect and weak argument against providing cloud services to oil companies.
One would think that if these employees really cared about protecting the environment, they'd be arguing about things like that, which are much more directly tied to them than this indirect and weak argument against providing cloud services to oil companies.
The energy hunger of the people of the world (you and me).
Stopping Microsoft supporting oil companies won't fix reducing fossil fuel usage, we have to look at cause and effect.
The best course of action to reduce fossil fuel usage is to see which processes on earth use that fossil fuel, and see if that can be transformed to use renewable energy. A combination of scientific research, regulation, awareness, education and trying to change human behaviour is probably the best way forward.
Blaming specific companies, for helping solving an energy need, seems not helpfull in that way.
The best course of action to reduce fossil fuel usage is to see which processes on earth use that fossil fuel, and see if that can be transformed to use renewable energy. A combination of scientific research, regulation, awareness, education and trying to change human behaviour is probably the best way forward.
Blaming specific companies, for helping solving an energy need, seems not helpfull in that way.
> companies won't fix reducing fossil fuel usage, we have to look at cause and effect.
Group for responsible solar is a fake charity funded by the oil sector that files planning objection to every solar farm in Britain, including noise complaints and ‘they should be on the roofs’ and then objects to the solar panels being on the roofs too, because they ‘ruin the view’.
They’ve made it illegal to build wind turbines on land on UK
They objected to an underground electricity cable to France because it would ‘ruin the landscape’
Oil companies are players, they protect their profits and you are getting played
Group for responsible solar is a fake charity funded by the oil sector that files planning objection to every solar farm in Britain, including noise complaints and ‘they should be on the roofs’ and then objects to the solar panels being on the roofs too, because they ‘ruin the view’.
They’ve made it illegal to build wind turbines on land on UK
They objected to an underground electricity cable to France because it would ‘ruin the landscape’
Oil companies are players, they protect their profits and you are getting played
Ofcourse oil companies are players, this is where regulations and rules are important, governments are also players in this arena.
Is Microsoft a player, like that? I don't think so that much, they only have an active control on there own energy/oil usage.
The only thing that will happen if Microsoft is giving in to these demands of employees, it will be perceived as morally good, and then in reality the oil companies still have a need and switch supplier. All because energy demand didn't change, only morals.
It is like the Maslows hierarchy of needs, but then applied at a world scale, we need to take into account everybody's (humans, animals, nature, companies and other societal structures) needs, and address the problems from the ground up. Otherwise the world will end up in a fighting mess, like what you describe in the UK, fighting solar and wind energy, or those employees of Microsoft, all never actualizing the energy transition.
Is Microsoft a player, like that? I don't think so that much, they only have an active control on there own energy/oil usage.
The only thing that will happen if Microsoft is giving in to these demands of employees, it will be perceived as morally good, and then in reality the oil companies still have a need and switch supplier. All because energy demand didn't change, only morals.
It is like the Maslows hierarchy of needs, but then applied at a world scale, we need to take into account everybody's (humans, animals, nature, companies and other societal structures) needs, and address the problems from the ground up. Otherwise the world will end up in a fighting mess, like what you describe in the UK, fighting solar and wind energy, or those employees of Microsoft, all never actualizing the energy transition.
If oil beats out renewables because they're using the cloud rather than several colocated racks, renewables have bigger viability problems. Not saying they do, but the cloud won't be what changes energy policy.
This also gets at the issue of whether or not cloud providers are common carriers. Or even Spotify and Joe Rogan. As a business, I don't want to be in the game of policing which customers or vendors I want on ideological grounds because it opens the floodgates to more complaints like this. The bar for not doing business with someone acting legally needs to be very high.
This also gets at the issue of whether or not cloud providers are common carriers. Or even Spotify and Joe Rogan. As a business, I don't want to be in the game of policing which customers or vendors I want on ideological grounds because it opens the floodgates to more complaints like this. The bar for not doing business with someone acting legally needs to be very high.
Ironically, this article highlights multiple times how successful Microsoft has been at boosting efficiency within the oil and gas industry that it's nearly an advertisement for Microsoft.
You know what I want?
I want Google employees to fight the dark side of the ad business.
You know what’s not going to happen? Them being successful in cutting off their own legs.
I want Google employees to fight the dark side of the ad business.
You know what’s not going to happen? Them being successful in cutting off their own legs.
[deleted]
>> “My resignation was driven in part by the realization that the tech industry, including Microsoft, is increasing the profitability and competitiveness of these fossil fuel giants..."
Giants? MSFT is at 3 trillion dollars while XOM is at 529 billion. And we already have alternatives to Microsoft...
Giants? MSFT is at 3 trillion dollars while XOM is at 529 billion. And we already have alternatives to Microsoft...
This whole thing is a bit of a stretch they would do the same thing in-house even MS did not provide those services.
I can't think of a better argument to have on-premises software than this article.
Oil and gas computational techniques are going to be critical for future geothermal power. Modern geothermal is only possible because of oil/gas technology. And geothermal is the only practical future "base load" source, since fission is such a clown show.
If you are against climate change, the effective policy to pursue is a carbon tax. Trying to shadowban computational geology is counterproductive.
If you are against climate change, the effective policy to pursue is a carbon tax. Trying to shadowban computational geology is counterproductive.
Yet another reason not to use Microsuck products. We all desperately need oil for decades to come, and expensive oil hurts poor people around the world the most. Your moralizing snobbery will not actually stop oil extraction because we need it. You're just shooting your software LOB in the foot.
Where are the Microsoft employees protesting ties to authoritarian regimes, invasions of privacy, censorship, and other actually worthwhile causes? Nowhere to be fucking seen. This "protest" of fossil fuels is not a protest but a psyop pushed from the top by the authoritarians in the West who want to destroy it and set up a world government. I'm not buying it.
Where are the Microsoft employees protesting ties to authoritarian regimes, invasions of privacy, censorship, and other actually worthwhile causes? Nowhere to be fucking seen. This "protest" of fossil fuels is not a protest but a psyop pushed from the top by the authoritarians in the West who want to destroy it and set up a world government. I'm not buying it.
Millions of people on the middle east rely on the oil to fund their countries basics like grain purchases...
They don't really have anything else to sell. They live in a desert.
Why do Microsoft employees feel good about a cause that will cause misery and poverty to Millions
If they want to make the world a better place, make windows crush less.
Why do Microsoft employees feel good about a cause that will cause misery and poverty to Millions
If they want to make the world a better place, make windows crush less.
In other words, some low-level engineer at BP signed up for Azure and provisioned a few VMs with GPUs. Let's say MS did ban an entire industry from using their products... wouldn't that engineer just switch to AWS and use EC2 instances instead? Or is the argument that every cloud company should independently decide not to serve this particular industry? If that's true, why are we pressuring private companies at all? Wouldn't it be more effective for the government to sanction these forbidden companies, instead of relying on so many independent profit-motivated companies to voluntarily lower their profits?