Fossil Fuel Recruiters Banned From Three More UK Universities (theguardian.com) 174
Three more UK universities have banned fossil fuel companies from recruiting students through their career services, with one citing the industry as a "fundamental barrier to a more just and sustainable world." From a report: The University of the Arts London, University of Bedfordshire, and Wrexham Glyndwr University join Birkbeck, University of London, which was the first to adopt a fossil-free careers service policy in September. The moves follow a campaign supported by the student-led group People & Planet, which is now active in dozens of universities. The group said universities have been "propping up the companies most responsible for destroying the planet," while the climate crisis was "the defining issue of most students' lifetimes." The campaign is backed by the National Union of Students and the Universities and College Union, which represents academics and support staff. "The approach supports future generations to make meaningful career decisions," said Lynda Powell, the executive director of operations at Wrexham Glyndwr University (WGU). "Through this we are supporting the development of a sustainable workforce for the future."
Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:4, Insightful)
So: we're going to need some oil for the foreseeable future. And we're all crying that oil companies need to transition to sustainable energy as well. How are you proposing they do that if you're denying them the clever young minds who can make that happen? Come on, let your students make up their own minds. And don't worry that they will make bad choices, after all you've had the chance to ideologically work them over for 4-6 years or so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are planning on halting the production and use of any and all plastics....well, you're going to need oil.
As I understand it...plastics and other products far outweigh gasoline and other fuels as far as total oil processing goes....?
Yep...
And let's watch global economy really take a hit if you want to try to shut it all
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you are planning on halting the production and use of any and all plastics....well, you're going to need oil.
Medications, asphalt roads, waterproof/sealants for your house, roofing, paint, fabrics and a lot more. That list is incredibly long and is effectively a list of everything the modern world has to offer.
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why it's such a waste to just burn the stuff while driving around.
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why it's such a waste to just burn the stuff while driving around.
You (and the GP) realize that asphalt roads and shingles are the waste products from refining the parts that people burn while driving around, right? And that they're both inferior to alternative products in the same space? Concrete is drastically superior to asphalt pavement and steel is superior to asphalt shingles. Asphalt is trash the refineries found a way to get rid of profitably, not a product we want to keep around.
Coating, sealants, paints, and fabrics, yeah, those are useful. I suspect people will find alternative sources of carbon molecules to keep making such things when buying the raw materials from an oil company becomes too expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't actually need plastics.
Most containers can be replaced by materials that are recyclable (plastic isn't) or compostable (plastic isn't).
Mushroom fibers, paper bags, seaweed, there are many replacements which can be mass manufactured at cheaper costs.
It's only with artificial subsidies and no disposal costs that plastics even exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are organic and inorganic replacements for many of those. Including sealants.
I'm not saying there's nothing that plastics might be a more optimal solution for, but those tend to be when it's a single plastic chemical string, usually something "permanent". Most plastics in use are for temporary things, and those are bad uses.
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Again with the "oil subsidy" claims. I've tried but I've yet to find a source that can point out documented subsidies the govt gives these oil companies...?
This is my top google result [priceofoil.org] for oil subsidies [google.com]. This is my second result [imf.org]. This is my third [yale.edu]. You are either trolling, or a complete incompetent. Either way, GTFOH, you simpering waste of space.
Re: Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:2)
Where did you hear that? As I have always understood it over 80% of every barrel of crude ends up as fuel with everything else lumped into the remainder.
I've always thought petroleum is such a fantastic and versatile resource that it's pretty dumb to just take so much of it and literally burn it to make hot.
Re: Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:2)
I would check some other resources, it may be that 80% of the non-fuel petroleum ends up as plastic.
Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not wrong but these companies have shot themselves in the foot by spending billions both in denying climate change and in preventing action. Every single major oil corporation has gone out of their way this last half century to earn the ill will they are now receiving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would prefer my university to not make such ideological choices on my behalf or in my name.
They always are doing, you have a choice as to where you choose to go to university, and they are doing nothing to prevent you from seeking work in the industry in question.
Re: (Score:2)
and they are doing nothing to prevent you from seeking work in the industry in question.
Of course they are preventing people from seeking work in industry in question. the decision is Literally to blacklist them from their school's career services, so students cannot use the University's services to seek out opportunities with them...
Re: (Score:3)
When you're asked to make a gay cake you say that one is free to go to gay bakery. But when an establishment of learning chooses not to support an industry that funds disinformation, your freedom to choose is somehow being threatened. Hypocrites and cowards, all.
There is the matter of whether the university is public or private, which the article does not seem to mention.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not wrong but these companies have shot themselves in the foot by spending billions both in denying climate change and in preventing action. Every single major oil corporation has gone out of their way this last half century to earn the ill will they are now receiving.
No ill will here.
I'm thankful for the natural gas that keeps me from freezing in the winter, the gasoline that lets me move independently from place to place, the fertilizer that helps grow my food, the diesel that gets that food to me, often on asphalt roads, the packaging that keeps it fresh, the shingles on my roof, the lubricants that keep my mechanical devices from seizing and hundreds of others things. I think about what life was like 150 years ago and very much prefer today.
Some of these thing
Re: (Score:2)
You've got yours now so who cares about future generations who will enjoy a diminished quality of life due to our slow action on climate change, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth does the standard of living of pre industrial people have to do with anything we're talking about?
I suspect you've created a fiction in your head where I'm advocating for an immediate halting of fossil fuel use despite me having said nothing of the sort. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Re: (Score:2)
That 1.2C of warming has had approximately zero effect on the absolutely huge improvements in pretty much all facets of the human condition globally.
How about the unprecedented number of major droughts around the world this year https://earthsky.org/earth/dro... [earthsky.org] ? Or how about the dissipation of glaciers many parts of the world depend on for drinking water and to water their crops https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] ? How about the proliferation of a wide range of tropical diseases that is currently underway https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] ?
And this is just the beginning as our planet continues to warm at an ever rapidly growing pace. You can engage in
Re: (Score:2)
How about the unprecedented number of major droughts around the world this year https://earthsky.org/earth/dro... [earthsky.org] ?
Just a note - a warming world will cause increased water evaporation This increased evaporation will cause more precipitation as water vapor goes through it's rough 9 day cycle.
While some places will become drier as the instability of the atmosphere works it's way to a "new normal" some places will endure a temporary drought, and a few will suffer a permanent loss of precipitation.
The same with places becoming wetter, temporarily or permanently.
We're on the roller coaster ride now, and we gonna find o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm always frustrated that the supply side is always under attack and so little is being done to curb demand (EVs are not "a lot"), which is the only way to meaningfully impact the situation.
In pseudo-conflicts like these we usually require a villain, so we can have a "War on The Thing". In this case it's the fossil fuel companies, and they foolishly decided to give an Academy Award-winning performance, so now we're almost always chasing the wrong villain. The real villain is ourselves.
Similar situation pla
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that frustrate you?
I think it might be because you see it through moral terms -- who deserves to get the blame and to be attacked for it.
I, at this point, don't really care about that. I see it simply as a cost/benefit calculation. There's a problem. Get the problem fixed, by targeting whatever is most efficient to target. So what is easier, targeting a few corporations, or convincing millions of people to change their habits? I think the first by far.
I also think that blaming the consumer is mostl
They're literally using the same tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
They're putting their thumb on the scale, and it's a *big* thumb. That makes your post invalid.
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:5, Insightful)
You are forgetting that the oil companies systematically suppressed, sabotaged and ridiculed the actual Science that could have told people reliably what was going on for decades. That puts almost all blame on them.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:2)
Unfair to Geoscience Students (Score:2)
You are forgetting that the oil companies systematically suppressed, sabotaged and ridiculed the actual Science
In today's world if we are going to start banning companies who misbehave from recruiting then exactly how are new graduates going to fin jobs? In particular, it is hardly fair for a university to train someone in geosciences and then ban the largest employers in the sector from recruiting them. Social media companies like Facebook are just as damaging to society and imagine the outcry from compsci majors if they were banned from recruiting.
Re: (Score:3)
There is "misbehave" and then there is misbehave. Playing fast and loose with the future of the human race is not acceptable in any value system, except one that wants to actually bring about the end of the human race. Ordinary arms dealers, warmongers, plague-spreaders, torturers, mass-murderers, etc. do not even need to apply for being in the same class. Maybe the ones that profiteered of the capability for global nuclear war could compete, but then what they did never lead to inevitable catastrophe, only
Re:Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:4, Insightful)
Are oil companies responsible for destroying the planet?
They're responsible for making the world dumber when they claimed for decades that leaded gasoline was perfectly safe. https://www.nbcnews.com/health... [nbcnews.com]
Nothing makes me feel better knowing the day will come when we tell the middle east we won't be needing their oil anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies themselves never actually explicitly claimed that leaded gasoline was safe, and the article you linked doesn't say they did. However, they did know it was poisonous from the day it was invented, [smithsonianmag.com] and did their corrupt best to hide its dangers and prevent the Federal government from banning its use, [wired.com] going so far as salting the investigative committed with industry supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
https://ajph.aphapublications.... [aphapublications.org]
The industry's assurances of the safety of leaded gasoline were undermined by a horrifying disaster that occurred
in the Standard Oil Company's experimental laboratories in
Elizabeth, New Jersey. Between October 26 and October 30,
1924, five workers died and 35 others experienced severe
palsies, tremors, hallucinations, and other serious neurological symptoms of organic lead poisoning. Thus, of 49 workers
in the tetraethyl lead processing plant, over 80 per cent died
or were sever
Re: Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:2)
Re: Typical short-sightedness and finger pointing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are responsible.
You, of course, have completely ignored the decades, and esp. the last few years of reports where it was revealed that their own scientists and engineers *KNEW* this was dangerous, and what was going to happen, and they suppressed the info.
You are *clearly* ignoring the massive lobbying right now, to keep solar and wind back, as well as the huge disinformation campaign about them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are *clearly* ignoring the massive lobbying right now, to keep solar and wind back, as well as the huge disinformation campaign about them.
No, that isn't happening. You are right that the oil companies lied about AGW. But you are wrong that they are holding back solar and wind. Solar and wind are their best friends. They allow for the greenwashing of natural gas. And they allow for a place to direct your anger (governments can say, look we deployed a bunch of solar, leave us alone now). What they don't do is replace any of the baseload power that fossil fuels (mostly) produce. And even better if you try to use wind or solar for baseloa
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I say about drugs. The drug dealers produce it but drug users are the ones using it. If people would stop buying drugs this wouldn't be an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Are oil companies responsible for destroying the planet? Maybe it's not them, but us:
You phrase this as an either/or.
The answer can be "both".
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of universities are adding lots of solar. Does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who has ever got a job from a job fair. Job fairs seem to be just a way for students to get free stationery from HR drones and for businesses to get some actual work done by sending the HR drones away for the day.
inb4 worship of money (Score:5, Informative)
The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report. [theguardian.com] (old report, now)
Big oil companies are spending millions to appear 'green.' Their investments tell a different story, report shows [cnn.com] (surprised face)
This is not just a case of customers driving demand. This is a case of demand being created and maintained artificially.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And also a case of short term profits being prioritized massively over species survival. These people are traitors to all of the human race, nothing less.
Whee facts are overrated again (Score:2)
Modding down facts doesn't change them. It doesn't make them go away. Enough of us read at low thresholds because we know that moderation is frequently abused that it doesn't really change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of New England's homes use oil to heat their houses and provide hot water.
No, most of them use natural gas [commonwealthmagazine.org]. Only in the smallest states is heating oil most common. It is several times more common than anywhere else in the nation, though.
I'm guessing the government isn't paying to replace any of those furnaces soon.
I'm sure you're right about that — but how many of those furnaces would have already been replaced if not for federal subsidies on heating oil [energy.gov] which could have been spent on ground source heat pumps? In particular, we could use the army corps of engineers to rapidly and cost effectively do the ground loop installs.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right about it not being used most, but in fact, where it's used, it's quite heavily used. [wordpress.com] I don't think Pennsylvania or New York qualify as examples of "the smallest states". 16% of households in Pennsylvania use it, 19% in New York, 24% in Massachusetts, 29% in Rhode Island, 39% in Connecticut, 40% in Vermont, 43% in New Hampshire, and 59% in Maine.
As for subsidies being misdirected, I have to wonder how many furnace upgrades could have been funded by the various subsidies to EV buyers and to EV an
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point of the above post. Oil companies spent billions to reduce the perception that climate change was a problem which stifled action like say, switching out oil heaters for cleaner options which should have been started decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Not? In Europe we get like 50% of the cost of a new heating system if we switch away from oil and gas heating.
Get better politicians.
Moronic and malicious (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly, these 'fossil-fuel' companies exist because a demand exists for fossil-fuels. It may be a meaningful career for at least some people in the next generation, until we are completely free of fossil fuel requirements. If these Universities believe that some companies are bad, and they have educated their students properly, then they need to *encourage* their students to get in there. Get people into those companies who actually want to transition those companies away from their current product and int
Not so much (Score:2)
I mean, go watch "Who killed the electric car?". Or freaking Who Framed Rodger Rabbit for Chris' sake. Or look up one of the many articles discussing how they're using the same playbook tobacco companies used.
In the real world the best product doesn't magically win. Markets aren't free. Stop pretending that they are.
Re: (Score:3)
They exist because their product is useful. Plus there's no way that electric cars could have caught on in the early 20th century, don't spread that lie.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no way that electric cars could have caught on in the early 20th century, don't spread that lie.
In early days, EVs outnumbered fuel vehicles. Cheap oil from Texas made long trips by car viable. But we could have used trains with pantograph wires and charging plugs at parking spaces instead of having everybody having a long distance automobile. It would have been more efficient even then.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not healthy for student career prospects, agreed; that being said, job prospects in the oil industry aren't looking as hot as they were 30 years ago. It would probably be better for the university career counselors to encourage other recruiters on-campus as opposed to simply banning petrochemical company recruiters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, taking a casual glance through these "universities" all I see is artsy fartsy stuff with a casual nod to the sciences. What sciences there are seem to be only biology, and maybe a few forensics courses. No chem. No botany. No geology. No anthropology. Don't get me wrong, the arts are fine, but they must be deluding themselves if they think big oil / big gas / big precious minerals is going to be demanding a ton of art graduates...
In other words, pretty much nothing a fossil fuel company would want, un
Re: (Score:2)
They have spent billions overall to manufacture demand for their products. Did you get some of that money
Well yes, by way of investments. I also get a big smile every time I roll down the window and listen to the engine rev. Performance exhaust FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, these 'fossil-fuel' companies exist because a demand exists for fossil-fuels.
Which they created and amplified by a massive misinformation campaign that has been running since the 1980. These companies are the ones responsible for the catastrophe that is coming. Stop defending evil.
One that was so effective that you (and I mean you specifically) actually parrot their misinformation for them. Now lets see if you can figure out which pieces of information those are.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to cut back on the drugs before your brain rots completely. Obviously you have lost all connection to reality already.
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
The colleges can't trust the students they've educated to make decisions? That speaks volumes. Or is it that they are being "forced" into taking dirty jobs because of student debt?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because some douche is pissed that an engineer got a high-paying job doing something said douche doesn't approve of while they are stuck waiting tables with student loans to pay off.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
The kids can still apply at oil companies all day long. Nothing's changed except those companies won't get extra help from the University.
Re: (Score:3)
Petroleum is still necessary, and will be for some time.
You're only thinking about oil (Score:3)
Yeah, we're gonna be using liquid oil for a while, but the rate of that use is going to plummet.
Re: (Score:3)
It'll drop by maybe 75%, eventually. It'll take decades. Perhaps 30+ years into the career of anyone graduating university now.
Re: (Score:2)
You have powerful old money with their thumbs on the scale. If we had an actual free market it would be done in no time. More so if the oil and gas companies couldn't externalize their costs. For example if they had the pay all the medical costs incurred from breathing smog.
No, that's not what's happening here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to know if any of these universities are taking money from said companies to do research. I don't suppose there is a website I can look this up on.
Re: No, that's not what's happening here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's relevant if these universities are taking big oils money under the table and still denouncing them. Kind of hypocritical don't you think? Are we sure that it didn't work? Until such information is released, we can never know.
Re: (Score:2)
College - Bakery
Oil Company - Gay wedding cake
Re: (Score:2)
Is this your way of saying that climate zealotry is a religion?
Re: (Score:2)
Religious persecution (Score:2, Insightful)
Religious persecution by religious zealots.
I don't know where ... (Score:2)
Better in that they can publicly state that they hire scientists and engineers for the purpose of solving problems. Not journalists and political studies people whose job it is to sway and distort public opinion.
Echo chambers (Score:2)
One must assume that their own means of influence are so weak and the feeble minded are incapable of being swayed by logic and reason to follow this course of action... or that their ideology is so worthless that it can'
How The Oil Industry Made Us Doubt Climate Change (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of defending of the oil companies in this thread: blame the addict, not the drug dealer and cartels ...
Here is an extensive article from 2020 on how oil companies made us doubt climate change [bbc.com]
It details how it was known since ~ 1981 that emissions from burning carbon fuel will impact global climate.
And for over three decades:
Here is a quote from a researcher who studied the tactics of the tobacco companies (emphasis mine):
And it goes beyond harmful products:
There is also the environmental PR campaign [bbc.com] ...
It's just recruiters. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry about it. Recruiters are the folks looking for graduates. The schools aren't deprecating whole fields of study or employment - they're just saying, "Go find some other ways of approaching our grads. You can't use our tools." Much ado about nothing.
When universities retire, say, petrochemical engineering, well... now there's a problem.
objectively necessary (Score:2)
This progress
Were any students recruited from these places? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
( And, FWIW, in this case I share their opinion of oil companies, and do not own a car. )
Re: (Score:2)
Ok dumbass, how do we replace everything petroleum products are used in right fucking now .
That's a stupid question. You taper off, obviously. Even if we did no new drilling, we'd still have production for a considerable time. And more probably, leases already granted would still be fulfilled.
Oh wait, you have zero fucking clue what you are talking about. Yet again. Like every other comment you've made over the years.
Who are you, coward, that you would even know? And why are you plaguing my comments with your cowardice?
Re: (Score:3)
So you like government forcing speech then? Cool.
Oh boy (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, time for some reals instead of feels:
1. This isn't censorship. Oil companies are free to reach out to students, they just can't do it with the University's help. The University is under no obligation to prop up your failing business model.
2. We have viable alternatives to oil & gas that are both superior economically and ecologically. The only reason to keep using oil/gas is to protect old money & Saudi kings.
3. The University has rights too you know. Freedom of Association is just as much a right as anything else. Notice how you implicitly side with fossil fuel? That's because they spent decades pushing your buttons (or paying you).
Read this comment while you can folks. I got Kharma to burn, but it won't be long until it's modded down by the same folks yelling about censorship. Is that Irony or Satire? I don't know, I'm a programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it most of the people on this forum won't be alive in 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. It's a legal and necessary commodity. There are worse factions that could be banned from university settings for the net evil they've wrought upon humanity. Let's start with communism [outono.net].
Re: (Score:2)
The cold hard truth of the matter is that without fossil fuels and their derivatives, millions or even billions would die. They touch every aspect of our lives, from farming to medicine to luxury...you can't name a single industry that's not heavily impacted by fossil fuels.
What is more alarming is some climate activist have no problem with this outcome. Even some members of this forum have implied they are perfectly fine with letting billions die if saves the planet. I find this outlook to be very concerning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You call it "just", I call it anti-human (Score:4)
Okay, you first.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes I would sacrifice a part of humanity to make sure that other species survive and we don't completely destroy the environment.
So would have Hitler. I get to say that without it being a Godwin because you are actually advocating for genocide. WTF is wrong with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I would sacrifice a part of humanity to make sure that other species survive and we don't completely destroy the environment.
Wow not only are you are truly a disgusting human being but a imbecile also. But of course, this does not surprise me. Many of you environmental nazi's tend to be from the shallow end of the gene pool. Now let's spend some time educating you on how stupid you truly are. I'm going to type this real slow so as not to confuse you to much. If you need any help with any words larger than four letters just lets us know.
Now lets quickly review what we know about you.
1) disgusting human being, check.
2) i
Re: (Score:2)
Lets look at you:
Oh look, another disgusting human being, and a coward to boot. It's probably the original poster who didn't getting called out and shown what a disgusting human being he is. He is still a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm delighted that these recruiters are being turned away; I have a son with a chem degree who would be DELIGHTED to take a nice, high paying job with a petrochemical company and the less competition he has from other college grads, the better.
On the bright side I doubt the oil companies would want graduates from these universities anyway, after having being indoctrinated to be haters throughout their entire studies there. Also pretty sure the oil companies could afford to create or buy their own universities should the talent pool from the existing ones start to dwindle, which is unlikely in any case.
Please think of the decor! (Score:2)
University of the Arts London specializes in arts, design, fashion and the performing arts. No energy company would ever recruit there, they need people that can produce something relevant
Hey! Exxon needs interior designers for their boardrooms too. Without a pool of these highly trained professionals the colors may clash!