This week, about how will reduce our nation’s demand for oil. The article estimated that America’s need for oil would drop by 17 billion barrels by 2055, causing a massive shift in the energy market — cutting down on emissions from both oil consumption and production. Then, Bloomberg went on to say that this is somehow bad.

The piece quotes a statement from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers association, not exactly a neutral party when it comes to matters of fuel and petrochemical manufacturing in America. The association claims that cutting emissions isn’t the right goal — instead, we should be focusing on , , to pluck those emitted particles from the atmosphere. It’s in reverse: The most overcomplicated solution, that harms the profits of the fewest archaic industries, is usually the best.

Of course, that’s what this all comes down to: Profit. Fossil fuel companies have since the 1970s, but elected not to diversify their profit streams by developing new, more eco-friendly methods of storing and using energy. Instead, they funded meant to protect their core competency — drilling, refining, and selling oil.

Reducing fossil fuel demand in the United States is good — unequivocally, incontrovertibly, full stop. This sort of profit-minded both-sidesism from trusted names like Bloomberg only serves to muddy the conversation, dragging out a pointless debate that’s long since been solved with facts — and one that, with every second it continues, .