7 ms·

These companies are responsible for creating a catastrophe on a global scale. We might literally go extinct because of them. All their assets should be seized t

These companies are responsible for creating a catastrophe on a global scale. We might literally go extinct because of them. All their assets should be seized to repair the damage, and people responsible should be tried for crimes against humanity.

jcranmer 8y ago
If you seriously believe that, then you are equally guilty of crimes against humanity for being an accomplice to these acts with your consumption of their products. After all, they haven't forced you to buy their goods.
- cazum 8y ago
  Oil industries have the financial resources to influence policy, public opinion, economics and business practices. Individuals do not. Blaming the consumer for buying bad shit when there is not only no equivalent on the market, but an active campaign to supress any alternatives is simply being dishonest. And I am forced to buy their products. I need my car to get to work. I can't afford an electric vehicle. If I don't work, I can't have a home or eat. Thus my choice becomes: consume oil or die.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > I need my car to get to work. For the past 7 years, I've been able to walk/bike/take the bus to work instead of the car. And this isn't even in a walkable urbanist utopia. You chose to live and work in places that require a car to get to work. You probably eliminated all the options that would have enabled you to not use a car, and society does not make it easy to make that choice. But that choice still does exist. This is the problem with the rhetoric that seeks to place the entire blame for our fossil-fuel dependence on Big Oil: it ignores the fact that most of those lifestyle decisions were made without the influence of the oil industry, and often in pursuit of other goals. It wasn't Standard Oil who said "gee, let's decamp people from the inner cities into these large sprawls of white-picket-fence housing tracts"--that was real estate developers who pushed for that. Nor did Standard Oil cause the decline of streetcars, commuter rail, and interurban rail service: that was a vicious ridership/profit death spiral, somewhat helped by GM specifically but more heavily caused by an overregulated rail industry in comparison to the underregulated private automotive transit. There's a lot of blame to go around. Don't pretend that we, as a general society, deserve none of it.
    - cazum 8y ago
      You being able to take a bus to work does not mean that the majority of people in America can as well. A large number of jobs are filled by people who cannot afford to live anywhere but in a different city than where their employer is located. This was not their choice, because they didn't choose to layout housing and real estate markets in a way that causes this. You're making my point for me. The individual has little culpability in oil consumption when their homes are built far away from their jobs due to real estate developers. Nor are they culpable for not taking public transit when those systems are utterly eroded by private interests. It may not have been big oils direct actions that led to these conditions, but that doesn't change the fact that the individuals who live under them can be blamed for living under them. Sure, I guess we can give them some flak for not changing the conditions by rising up and seizing control of the resources that make their conditions so existentially dire, but then, that's exactly what the original op was saying.
    - normal_man 8y ago
      Individual actions like driving or biking to work are drops in the bucket, basically insignificant. We know that 100 companies cause 70% of the pollution on this planet. We know their names, and the names of those who decide their strategies and policies. There's no need for this amorphous "its all of society" crap.
- yogthos 8y ago
  You're right to an extent. We're all complicit in how our society functions. However, we also have limited options to change things as individuals. I do what I can to minimize my environmental footprint, I walk to work, I don't buy things I don't need, I vote, and I try to educate people. At the end of the day it's like blaming the hostage though, because I don't get to choose how the society functions. Meanwhile, the idea that this problem can be solved by individual efforts is laughable. To address these issues we need to fundamentally restructure our society. The idea of constant growth and consumerism is incompatible with our long term survival.
  - drankula3 8y ago
    Many can agree that society needs to change. The important questions are how does it need to change, and what is a viable path of creating such change? Politically, we can't do something that would lower our quality of life en masse, which limits our options with regards to this issue.
    - yogthos 8y ago
      And this is why we're likely going to go extinct. We consistently choose short term comfort over our long term viability as a species. The climate catastrophe is a perfect example of this. Nowadays, most people recognize that it's a problem and that it will likely impact them in significant ways in the future, but they are unwilling to sacrifice anything in the short term to tackle it. Perhaps it's time to consider the fact that humans are just not viable long term. Most species that ever existed went extinct, and it looks like we're not going to be an exception. The only difference is that we're going to go extinct knowingly.
- skyfaller 8y ago
  I'm reminded of this interview with someone dealing with the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide: http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/179425163901/there-was-a-huge-puzzle-after-the-genocide-how http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/179425163901/there-was-a... When crimes are perpetrated by extremely large numbers of people, you can't punish them all. You have to limit yourself to punishing the organizers, and forgive the rest. In this case, the organizers are the leaders in the fossil fuel industry. And it's not true that consumers are equally guilty as fossil fuel executives. More than 70% of global emissions come from just 100 companies: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... The blame should be concentrated at the top, even if we are all somewhat guilty.
- kk58 8y ago
  Fertilizer, medicine,. Roads, clothes are all made due to oil. Pretty much no substitute available at base feedstock level.
ianai 8y ago
Should be possible to have crimes against life.
mlindner 8y ago
Humans will not go extinct even in the worst version of global warming. I really hate this hyperbole because it's easily disproven and simply gives fuel to deniers. Please don't use such hyperbole.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisco255 8y ago
  How is this being downvoted? The "Chicken Little" sky is falling approach is beyond ridiculous. The atmosphere has had a lot more CO2 than current levels in previous eras, like 5 times as much in the Jurassic era, for example. https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-d... In fact it's the plant matter from this very era that created oil in the first place...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - fulafel 8y ago
    We don't really know the conditions in which humanity would go extinct instead of just regressing to a mad max style remnant subsisting on edge of starvation. (Well, minus the cars obviously) Certainly the arrival of a jurassic style climate and quick disappearance of preconditions of agriculture, combined with quick extinction of human-huntable animals, cutting down forests for firewood, mixed in with wars (nuclear holocaust?) might trigger a very long period of civilization collapse. Why is not extinction a possibility?
    - esarbe 8y ago
      That sounds like a very reasonable scenario. I'm going to cry in the darkness now.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      Because we evolved intelligence and developed electricity, motors, greenhouses, etc. We have all the world's knowledge accessible from just a few clicks from anywhere on the planet. We have massive communication networks for coordinating efforts to stave off events. I think shy of a meteor hitting the planet, we'll be fine. We still might suffer big consequences, if sea levels rise too much and whole cities get displaced, but extinction is not even within 1/10th of a percent of chance of happening.

jcranmer 8y ago

If you seriously believe that, then you are equally guilty of crimes against humanity for being an accomplice to these acts with your consumption of their products. After all, they haven't forced you to buy their goods.

cazum 8y ago
Oil industries have the financial resources to influence policy, public opinion, economics and business practices. Individuals do not. Blaming the consumer for buying bad shit when there is not only no equivalent on the market, but an active campaign to supress any alternatives is simply being dishonest. And I am forced to buy their products. I need my car to get to work. I can't afford an electric vehicle. If I don't work, I can't have a home or eat. Thus my choice becomes: consume oil or die.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > I need my car to get to work. For the past 7 years, I've been able to walk/bike/take the bus to work instead of the car. And this isn't even in a walkable urbanist utopia. You chose to live and work in places that require a car to get to work. You probably eliminated all the options that would have enabled you to not use a car, and society does not make it easy to make that choice. But that choice still does exist. This is the problem with the rhetoric that seeks to place the entire blame for our fossil-fuel dependence on Big Oil: it ignores the fact that most of those lifestyle decisions were made without the influence of the oil industry, and often in pursuit of other goals. It wasn't Standard Oil who said "gee, let's decamp people from the inner cities into these large sprawls of white-picket-fence housing tracts"--that was real estate developers who pushed for that. Nor did Standard Oil cause the decline of streetcars, commuter rail, and interurban rail service: that was a vicious ridership/profit death spiral, somewhat helped by GM specifically but more heavily caused by an overregulated rail industry in comparison to the underregulated private automotive transit. There's a lot of blame to go around. Don't pretend that we, as a general society, deserve none of it.
  - cazum 8y ago
    You being able to take a bus to work does not mean that the majority of people in America can as well. A large number of jobs are filled by people who cannot afford to live anywhere but in a different city than where their employer is located. This was not their choice, because they didn't choose to layout housing and real estate markets in a way that causes this. You're making my point for me. The individual has little culpability in oil consumption when their homes are built far away from their jobs due to real estate developers. Nor are they culpable for not taking public transit when those systems are utterly eroded by private interests. It may not have been big oils direct actions that led to these conditions, but that doesn't change the fact that the individuals who live under them can be blamed for living under them. Sure, I guess we can give them some flak for not changing the conditions by rising up and seizing control of the resources that make their conditions so existentially dire, but then, that's exactly what the original op was saying.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    Individual actions like driving or biking to work are drops in the bucket, basically insignificant. We know that 100 companies cause 70% of the pollution on this planet. We know their names, and the names of those who decide their strategies and policies. There's no need for this amorphous "its all of society" crap.
yogthos 8y ago
You're right to an extent. We're all complicit in how our society functions. However, we also have limited options to change things as individuals. I do what I can to minimize my environmental footprint, I walk to work, I don't buy things I don't need, I vote, and I try to educate people. At the end of the day it's like blaming the hostage though, because I don't get to choose how the society functions. Meanwhile, the idea that this problem can be solved by individual efforts is laughable. To address these issues we need to fundamentally restructure our society. The idea of constant growth and consumerism is incompatible with our long term survival.
- drankula3 8y ago
  Many can agree that society needs to change. The important questions are how does it need to change, and what is a viable path of creating such change? Politically, we can't do something that would lower our quality of life en masse, which limits our options with regards to this issue.
  - yogthos 8y ago
    And this is why we're likely going to go extinct. We consistently choose short term comfort over our long term viability as a species. The climate catastrophe is a perfect example of this. Nowadays, most people recognize that it's a problem and that it will likely impact them in significant ways in the future, but they are unwilling to sacrifice anything in the short term to tackle it. Perhaps it's time to consider the fact that humans are just not viable long term. Most species that ever existed went extinct, and it looks like we're not going to be an exception. The only difference is that we're going to go extinct knowingly.
skyfaller 8y ago
I'm reminded of this interview with someone dealing with the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide: http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/179425163901/there-was-a-huge-puzzle-after-the-genocide-how http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/179425163901/there-was-a... When crimes are perpetrated by extremely large numbers of people, you can't punish them all. You have to limit yourself to punishing the organizers, and forgive the rest. In this case, the organizers are the leaders in the fossil fuel industry. And it's not true that consumers are equally guilty as fossil fuel executives. More than 70% of global emissions come from just 100 companies: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... The blame should be concentrated at the top, even if we are all somewhat guilty.
kk58 8y ago
Fertilizer, medicine,. Roads, clothes are all made due to oil. Pretty much no substitute available at base feedstock level.

ianai 8y ago

Should be possible to have crimes against life.

mlindner 8y ago

Humans will not go extinct even in the worst version of global warming. I really hate this hyperbole because it's easily disproven and simply gives fuel to deniers. Please don't use such hyperbole.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisco255 8y ago
How is this being downvoted? The "Chicken Little" sky is falling approach is beyond ridiculous. The atmosphere has had a lot more CO2 than current levels in previous eras, like 5 times as much in the Jurassic era, for example. https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-d... In fact it's the plant matter from this very era that created oil in the first place...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fulafel 8y ago
  We don't really know the conditions in which humanity would go extinct instead of just regressing to a mad max style remnant subsisting on edge of starvation. (Well, minus the cars obviously) Certainly the arrival of a jurassic style climate and quick disappearance of preconditions of agriculture, combined with quick extinction of human-huntable animals, cutting down forests for firewood, mixed in with wars (nuclear holocaust?) might trigger a very long period of civilization collapse. Why is not extinction a possibility?
  - esarbe 8y ago
    That sounds like a very reasonable scenario. I'm going to cry in the darkness now.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Because we evolved intelligence and developed electricity, motors, greenhouses, etc. We have all the world's knowledge accessible from just a few clicks from anywhere on the planet. We have massive communication networks for coordinating efforts to stave off events. I think shy of a meteor hitting the planet, we'll be fine. We still might suffer big consequences, if sea levels rise too much and whole cities get displaced, but extinction is not even within 1/10th of a percent of chance of happening.