context:

What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign

Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy, as well as other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry.

I work for a large biotech manufacturer doing field work. I -- and thousands of other field engineers -- are assigned company cars, which are all ICEs.

I have pointed out in the past that this is a mistake: we should at the very least, allow the engineers the choice to select an electric car from the options provided.

The fleet management team tested this out, but ultimately passed up on the option, because they wanted to shift towards reimbursing drivers instead of managing the fleet. They argued that this met everyone's needs, including allowing employees to drive electric if they want to buy one.

I think this is a big mistake: most people still find the transition complicated when shopping personally, but fleet program can manage a large number of vehicles purchasing, insurance, and maintenance much better, and is better equipped to help people get home chargers if they want. They literally piloted this exact program, and then chose not to expand it.

I want to contact relevant parties and try to assertively communicate that in this moment, we should all be in a war footing. This is an absolute crisis, and the company is clearly looking at simple options to do its part and leaving them unused because it's not aligned with their preferred proposal.

Can anyone help me collect up the shortest, most direct sources to share a five minute slide deck that says, "WAKE THE F*** UP! ROLL OUT THE PLAN YOU ALREADY SET UP AND TESTED, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, PEOPLE!"

Archived copies of the article: archive.today web.archive.org ghostarchive.org

To be clear: we're going to use renewable hydrogen for some things, such as fertilizer manufacturing — there isn't any other way to do them sustainably. There are applications for which it's one of the most expensive choices, such as home heating, and a whole host of industrial processes and aviation sitting in between.

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

Companies are becoming ever craftier in their efforts to pose as more climate-friendly than they are

The name of the ruse: a taxonomy of greenwashing

Mechanism

• Misleading information
• Attention deflection
• Attention reduction (absolute)
• Attention reduction (peer-overshadowed)
• Attention timing

Classic application

• Misleading claims made by firms themselves
• Greenshifting of blame on to demanding consumers
• Limited disclosure of worthy ambitions
• Decent disclosure but substandard vis à vis peers
• Delayed disclosure

Sophisticated application

• Greenlabelling by third parties, which certify firms’ performance
• Greenlighting of good-news case studies
• Fuller disclosure, but with greenhushing of details
• Greencrowding: substandard disclosure en masse
• Greenrinsing: headline-grabbing targets get gradually diluted

Archive link

The NYT article (being in the Dining section) doesn't really go into it, but this one goes over the climate risks to wild rice