[oldbbsnickname]

A cynical perspective is also potentially possible: that it's greenwashing to distract from continued FF extraction. Both realities can coexist.

Until they make a commitment, timeline, and are excited about measurable progress ending FFs, they lack credibility that they're not the world's and Earth's Big Tobacco.

[KeplerBoy]

Nobody expects BP to end fossil fuels. I fully expect them to go down with their product and fail to adapt, which is okay.

We passed peak gas stations a time ago. Some of them will be replaced by charging stations and convenience stores, but many of them will have to be demolished.

[hofo]

Given the difference in time to charge vs fill a gas tank that’s going to be an interesting war of supply and demand

[chrisco255]

Of course the difference between oil and tobacco is that the world's population would be 1/10th of what it is without oil.

[swarnie]

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

500-800m people on bicycles would probably be healthier overall.

[infecto]

At current technology we are unable to eliminate fossil fuels. In some regions we can definitely cover a lot with wind and solar but during the day its not always enough and we still have night time generation. How are you expecting a company to provide you timelines?

[nosefurhairdo]

Demanding a commitment and timeline to drop their core business is asinine. BP's responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders, not save the planet. And the comparison to tobacco is nonsense. Widely available and affordable energy has increased the material well-being of more people than perhaps any other industry, while tobacco offers a cheap high.

The climate issue only gets solved by innovation. There is no reasonable degree to which we can artificially restrict emissions to have a meaningful impact. All that does is make people poorer and further increase incentives to offshore manufacturing to where the energy is cheapest and dirtiest.

[RetroTechie]

> BP's responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders, not save the planet.

Sad but true. Investors that divert from fossil to renewables remove themselves from BP's shareholder pool. Leaving almost exclusively shareholders that want the company to do what it always did: produce fossil fuel.

So oil companies will remain that as long as they can. Maybe they'll do something for PR reasons, to hedge their bets, or legal requirements.

When demand for fossil fuels collapses, it's a safe bet other companies (like Tesla) will be established players in renewable tech. Oil companies? Too little, too late.

That said: more EV chargers out there = progress no matter who did it.

[matthewdgreen]

If BP doubles down on fossil extraction and fails to diversify, they risk destroying all of the shareholder value. Their mission is to be profitable in both the short and long term.

[infecto]

You said it better than I did. I hate this path of painting oil and gas companies as the big evil conspirators. They have certainly done things that are not great and have been part of natural disasters that probably could have been prevented.

There is that whole pitch. We need to be using more electricity to drive more innovation which will lead to greener alternatives.