Submitted by Wagamaga t3_yok2b6 in technology
OriginalCompetitive t1_iveshey wrote
Reply to comment by pearlsandplumes in Michael Bloomberg announces a new initiative to phase out coal in 25 countries. by Wagamaga
Say what you will, but Bloomberg has done more to end the use of coal than any other person alive. Sure, market forces are the ultimate driver, but he’s accelerated it immensely in the US.
nyaaaa t1_ivfo3pz wrote
What has he actually done? Provide his overpriced data that he tries to monopolize for free or less and call it helping? While getting a ton of free data in return?
OriginalCompetitive t1_ivfzuzx wrote
Google it if you really want to know. But in short, he bankrolled a war room of lawyers who spent the decade filing lawsuits, pushing regulatory changes, funding state and local legislation and initiatives, and anything else they could think of to target individual coal plants and drive them out of business.
And as your comment shows, it was a largely thankless task. He’s an unsung hero of the environmental movement.
war321321 t1_ivg2zy2 wrote
People who are doing zero to move society forward are often the ones most critical of those who are trying.
nyaaaa t1_ivjmz0j wrote
Worshipping good pr moves doesn't move society forward.
nyaaaa t1_ivgazba wrote
> And as your comment shows, it was a largely thankless task. He’s an unsung hero of the environmental movement.
Even according to their own website they did barely anything.
https://www.beyondcarbon.org/timeline/
Guess it worked on you.
I also don't see any significant impact on coal plant retirements beyond what would normally have happened. Good timed PR move.
GI_X_JACK t1_ivg03qf wrote
I am going to say "no he didn't".
Ultimately, its the work of engineers designing the systems, not the financial contributions which make change.
Money doesn't do anything, it just gets other people to do the actual work, while giving credit to people who made billions on, well others hard work.
It doesn't give any details on what this plan is, or how the $500 million was spent, so its a big "we don't know".
Lets say we had a system like Norway, where the oil industry was public and not private, and then used the revenue to pivot away from domestic consumption of oil, we wouldn't need the "charity".
We'd also have more accountability on where that 500 million was spent, and what this "plan" for solving global warming actually is.
But here we are, with this private charity, with no transparency, and a plan that is "just trust me bro", and suddenly he's the greatest person alive? Surely you jest.
OriginalCompetitive t1_ivg2pmm wrote
Ok, but it goes both ways. If money doesn’t do anything except get other people to do the real work, and it’s those other people who are responsible for actual events, then the rich owners of oil companies also don’t really do anything, and it’s the front line engineers who actually drill for oil who are truly responsible for the evils of climate change. Right?
The fact is that money organizes activity in our world. If you want to imagine a different world where everyone follows the Norwegian model, go for it. Meanwhile, Bloomberg used his money in the actual world to make a huge positive contribution to reducing greenhouse emissions.
GI_X_JACK t1_ivg4qty wrote
Did he?
OK, so itemize where that money actually went.
Or what is in that plan he has?
And how come no one else is getting credit besides bloomberg?
In the actual world, men like Bloomberg, especially his contributions politically, both economic and his positions in office cancel out anything he might have done as charity.
If you want a REAL compare and contrast, I'll go with NJ Gov Phil Murphy. Like Bloomberg, Murphy used to work in finance. Like Bloomberg, Murphy is rich.
Murphy ran on a campaign of not just bringing offshore wind to NJ, but an articulated, public plan on bringing the entire industry along with building the turbines, and put this right on the debate floor and part of his campaign.
Bloomberg as a "plan". What is it? can we read it? he donated $500 million. To what? How was this money spent?
The original statement: "Bloomberg did more than any other person to end the use of coal".
Can you back that up with anything other than "$500 million given to unknown sources" and "just trust me bro"
OriginalCompetitive t1_ivhlvc6 wrote
I just realized that I don’t give a damn whether you agree with me or not.
Raokairo t1_ivhmkm3 wrote
Not like GI_X_JACKass could have itemized the money either, so good on you for not worrying about their dipshit mentality.
GI_X_JACK t1_ivhp0ea wrote
No one can. Because its not public information...
GI_X_JACK t1_ivhovqk wrote
That's a "I have nothing other than pure hype, and I'm a fanboi for Bloomberg"
Stay mad.
james_d_rustles t1_ivhczcx wrote
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground here. I’m not a fan either of crediting billionaires with fixing complex issues after they throw a tiny fraction of their net worth at it and get hailed as a hero.. but on the flip side, money does certainly help, and the fact that they’re deciding to spend their money on some issue can’t be completely overlooked. Let’s give credit to all the engineers and hard workers who are making these types of things possible with technological advancements, and we can also make note of the fact that having that much money is fucking obscene to begin with, but I’d still rather the billionaires spend their money on these types of initiatives instead of buying social media vanity projects or manipulating the stock market.
GI_X_JACK t1_ivho08p wrote
Here is a reasonable middle ground:
Why don't you itemize what you've actually done. Perhaps with that 1 billion go start a company. Perhaps you can even make money on it.
And then show some actual leadership done, other than just showing a dollar amount and vauge plan.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments