4 ms·

> "I think you mean, the three bus-loads of ~90 CEOs and middle executives that, if they happened to crash/explode, would literally solve climate change overnig

> "I think you mean, the three bus-loads of ~90 CEOs and middle executives that, if they happened to crash/explode, would literally solve climate change overnight." No matter how many executives you propose to eliminate, the consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away. People consume energy and it's unlikely that we'll be able to reduce our usage meaningfully in the near future. If we want to meaningfully reduce energy usage it's going to take organized collective efforts around the planet.

pluma 7y ago
Don't kid yourself. It's not "consumer demand" that's doing the harm, it's companies. Companies aren't interested in fixing this because fixing it is not profitable. But you can't blame that on the consumers. The obvious solution is to make it less profitable not to address these problems but that means passing crippling regulations that will result in companies going under, markets shrinking, jobs being lost and products vanishing. In other words: political suicide. And it doesn't even take consumers protesting about these things, it's enough if a few billionaires or megacorps use their political power to push back on these attempts of "regulatory overreach" or whatever riles up the conservative vote today. Literally noone in a position necessary to do something against the climate crisis has any incentive to do anything meaningful to stop it.
- netsharc 7y ago
  But what is profit? Companies selling at the price where customers think "Oh that's a great price! I'll buy it!". How to get a cheap price? Manufacture where labor is cheap. And/or where there are low carbon taxes. Or where the EPA has been told by the leader of the country to ignore pollution by your factory. And using the best-priced raw materials (more easily to get from suppliers that don't have to spend a lot of money complying with regulations...). If only price labels are more something along the lines of "Price: 300 USD, 3kg of CO2, 400l of polluted water, 40ha of ruined farmland"...
- artimaeis 7y ago
  If we're going to climb the abstraction ladder of blame, then it's not the companies -- it's the consumption of energy and the release of various greenhouse gasses that's doing the harm, not the companies. But that's not a super-useful fact. We could globally outlaw capitalism, and I'd fully expect that the resource demand would just be replaced by governments (as is basically the case with China Coal & Saudi Oil) providing these materials since people are going to riot if you take them away. Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week, that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live? That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day? These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    Mmm, no. It's the companies. Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies. If there is a lever to make things better, and I stop you from knowing about that lever, I have stopped things from getting better. You can't argue that the lever might not have made things better, given that I was the person who suppressed the choice itself. Alternatively, if tax day is in two months, and you do not know tax day exists, and I know, and not only do I deliberately choose not to tell you, but I deliberately stop you from knowing, then I am responsible for you not filing your taxes on time. > Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week, We would have had 40 years to change to electric cars and heating, so it wouldn't matter. > that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live? Likewise the food transport industry would have had 40 years to transition their infrastructure to a sustainable state. Indeed, we might be using primarily hydroponics-based agriculture at this point. > That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day? The places that require air conditioning are sunny. Indeed, the entirety of america's energy requirements could be supplied by a tiny square of solar panels in the desert, so I do not see why in 40 years, air conditioning couldn't have matured to a state where it not only requires less energy, but also was sustainable. > These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels. I mean, they are now, but as I have stated repeatedly, we could have had 40 years to prepare. Now we're 2 days before tax day, scrambling to prepare for the worst, because we never really had enough warning to set us on a path to the best.
whycombinater 7y ago
Birth control limits. We can be happy fat cats and solve global warming just by having fewer people. Richness is resources per person. Resources on the planet are approximately fixed with occasional (large) increases from tech advances. The divisor, on the other hand, can be changed from 7 billion to 1 million. We would all be 7 thousand times richer. I would immediately own 5 abandoned Ferraris, and there would be hardly a need for any speed limits. Here's hoping for WW3, mass infertility, etc.
- fao_ 7y ago
  I have a rule. Anyone who advocates or otherwise wishes to impose systematic methods of extermination on other people should be the first people to be chosen to be subject to the system. You want people in the boat to resort to cannibalism? Ok, you're first to be eaten. You want to throw someone out of the hot air balloon? Ok, you first. Jump. If you want to serilize people? Ok. You first. Go to a doctor and demand to be sterilized. If they won't do it, either find a doctor that will, or grab a knife and do it yourself. You want a second plague? Ok. You first. Volunteer for Doctors Without Borders, go to a plague-ridden country, and deliberately infect yourself with something horrible. You want to bomb people? Ok, go join Doctors Without Borders, or another aid effort, and help bomb victims. Put yourself at risk of being bombed. Join the millitary and put yourself on the other end of the shelling. People rarely wish for these things to happen to them. Be the exception.
  - whycombinater 7y ago
    I don't want more than 0-2 kids, so...
    - fao_ 7y ago
      And you don't want other people to have any children. How hypocritical.
      - whycombinater 7y ago
        Fine, I only want 0 then. Argument won. I'd rather have 0 kids and fix humanity and global warming than have a kid. The fact that you'd rather nitpick my argument and call it hypocritical in the face of extinction... It's like...God is on a mountain with his arms raised in a Y saying "I have the secret to you're humanity:" and you say "ACTUALLY IT'S YOUR". I don't even.
perfunctory 7y ago
> consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away consumer demand is a very artificial phenomena that requires a massive propaganda campaign to keep it alive. I am talking about marketing of course. All we have to do really is to ban advertisement (wishful thinking of course). Without it consumer demand will wane super quick.
fao_ 7y ago
> the consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away. There wouldn't be consumer demand if the companies in question hadn't covered up the damage that they do. You can hide behind 'consumer demand' but that really is just a meaningless term, practically speaking, through what is almost a total control of the major press outlets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch), and rabid advertising, the consumer can be manipulated to like or dislike anything. Especially if you suppress certain details like "buying oil is killing the planet". It isn't like the companies in question didn't have 40 years to diversify into sustainable energy sources. You argue against the state having control, but at least if that were the case the state could have enforced a gradual tapering off and eventual stoppage of these types of energy. Unfortunately we no longer have the time to do that. In fact, you are using exactly the same arguments that the oil industry used, to cover up climate change. See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections. and Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies. > People consume energy and it's unlikely that we'll be able to reduce our usage meaningfully in the near future. The only reason people consume unsustainable energy is because the alternative is expensive, and people are not paid properly enough to be able to afford such luxuries as a clean conscience. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-ne... The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent. and It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty.

pluma 7y ago

Don't kid yourself. It's not "consumer demand" that's doing the harm, it's companies. Companies aren't interested in fixing this because fixing it is not profitable. But you can't blame that on the consumers. The obvious solution is to make it less profitable not to address these problems but that means passing crippling regulations that will result in companies going under, markets shrinking, jobs being lost and products vanishing. In other words: political suicide. And it doesn't even take consumers protesting about these things, it's enough if a few billionaires or megacorps use their political power to push back on these attempts of "regulatory overreach" or whatever riles up the conservative vote today. Literally noone in a position necessary to do something against the climate crisis has any incentive to do anything meaningful to stop it.

netsharc 7y ago
But what is profit? Companies selling at the price where customers think "Oh that's a great price! I'll buy it!". How to get a cheap price? Manufacture where labor is cheap. And/or where there are low carbon taxes. Or where the EPA has been told by the leader of the country to ignore pollution by your factory. And using the best-priced raw materials (more easily to get from suppliers that don't have to spend a lot of money complying with regulations...). If only price labels are more something along the lines of "Price: 300 USD, 3kg of CO2, 400l of polluted water, 40ha of ruined farmland"...
artimaeis 7y ago
If we're going to climb the abstraction ladder of blame, then it's not the companies -- it's the consumption of energy and the release of various greenhouse gasses that's doing the harm, not the companies. But that's not a super-useful fact. We could globally outlaw capitalism, and I'd fully expect that the resource demand would just be replaced by governments (as is basically the case with China Coal & Saudi Oil) providing these materials since people are going to riot if you take them away. Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week, that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live? That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day? These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels.
- fao_ 7y ago
  Mmm, no. It's the companies. Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies. If there is a lever to make things better, and I stop you from knowing about that lever, I have stopped things from getting better. You can't argue that the lever might not have made things better, given that I was the person who suppressed the choice itself. Alternatively, if tax day is in two months, and you do not know tax day exists, and I know, and not only do I deliberately choose not to tell you, but I deliberately stop you from knowing, then I am responsible for you not filing your taxes on time. > Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week, We would have had 40 years to change to electric cars and heating, so it wouldn't matter. > that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live? Likewise the food transport industry would have had 40 years to transition their infrastructure to a sustainable state. Indeed, we might be using primarily hydroponics-based agriculture at this point. > That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day? The places that require air conditioning are sunny. Indeed, the entirety of america's energy requirements could be supplied by a tiny square of solar panels in the desert, so I do not see why in 40 years, air conditioning couldn't have matured to a state where it not only requires less energy, but also was sustainable. > These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels. I mean, they are now, but as I have stated repeatedly, we could have had 40 years to prepare. Now we're 2 days before tax day, scrambling to prepare for the worst, because we never really had enough warning to set us on a path to the best.

whycombinater 7y ago

Birth control limits. We can be happy fat cats and solve global warming just by having fewer people. Richness is resources per person. Resources on the planet are approximately fixed with occasional (large) increases from tech advances. The divisor, on the other hand, can be changed from 7 billion to 1 million. We would all be 7 thousand times richer. I would immediately own 5 abandoned Ferraris, and there would be hardly a need for any speed limits. Here's hoping for WW3, mass infertility, etc.

fao_ 7y ago
I have a rule. Anyone who advocates or otherwise wishes to impose systematic methods of extermination on other people should be the first people to be chosen to be subject to the system. You want people in the boat to resort to cannibalism? Ok, you're first to be eaten. You want to throw someone out of the hot air balloon? Ok, you first. Jump. If you want to serilize people? Ok. You first. Go to a doctor and demand to be sterilized. If they won't do it, either find a doctor that will, or grab a knife and do it yourself. You want a second plague? Ok. You first. Volunteer for Doctors Without Borders, go to a plague-ridden country, and deliberately infect yourself with something horrible. You want to bomb people? Ok, go join Doctors Without Borders, or another aid effort, and help bomb victims. Put yourself at risk of being bombed. Join the millitary and put yourself on the other end of the shelling. People rarely wish for these things to happen to them. Be the exception.
- whycombinater 7y ago
  I don't want more than 0-2 kids, so...
  - fao_ 7y ago
    And you don't want other people to have any children. How hypocritical.
    - whycombinater 7y ago
      Fine, I only want 0 then. Argument won. I'd rather have 0 kids and fix humanity and global warming than have a kid. The fact that you'd rather nitpick my argument and call it hypocritical in the face of extinction... It's like...God is on a mountain with his arms raised in a Y saying "I have the secret to you're humanity:" and you say "ACTUALLY IT'S YOUR". I don't even.

perfunctory 7y ago

> consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away consumer demand is a very artificial phenomena that requires a massive propaganda campaign to keep it alive. I am talking about marketing of course. All we have to do really is to ban advertisement (wishful thinking of course). Without it consumer demand will wane super quick.

fao_ 7y ago

> the consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away. There wouldn't be consumer demand if the companies in question hadn't covered up the damage that they do. You can hide behind 'consumer demand' but that really is just a meaningless term, practically speaking, through what is almost a total control of the major press outlets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch), and rabid advertising, the consumer can be manipulated to like or dislike anything. Especially if you suppress certain details like "buying oil is killing the planet". It isn't like the companies in question didn't have 40 years to diversify into sustainable energy sources. You argue against the state having control, but at least if that were the case the state could have enforced a gradual tapering off and eventual stoppage of these types of energy. Unfortunately we no longer have the time to do that. In fact, you are using exactly the same arguments that the oil industry used, to cover up climate change. See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections. and Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies. > People consume energy and it's unlikely that we'll be able to reduce our usage meaningfully in the near future. The only reason people consume unsustainable energy is because the alternative is expensive, and people are not paid properly enough to be able to afford such luxuries as a clean conscience. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-ne... The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent. and It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty.