6 ms·

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 profit

by 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.
  - artimaeis 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure regardless of the lies that companies have told (obviously bad), the thing that is directly tied to climate change is the increase in the volume of greenhouse gasses. Now, I'm sure a lot of those executives are hot-heads, but I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions. Of course a time machine would make things easier, and of course it would be easier if there hadn't been systemic lies and cover-ups. But we cannot control that. In the context of what we're discussing -- it doesn't matter if you completely eliminate all 100 of the cited companies overnight, the demand will still exist for the services that require energy that renewables cannot currently supply the demand for.

by pluma 7y ago

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.
- artimaeis 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure regardless of the lies that companies have told (obviously bad), the thing that is directly tied to climate change is the increase in the volume of greenhouse gasses. Now, I'm sure a lot of those executives are hot-heads, but I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions. Of course a time machine would make things easier, and of course it would be easier if there hadn't been systemic lies and cover-ups. But we cannot control that. In the context of what we're discussing -- it doesn't matter if you completely eliminate all 100 of the cited companies overnight, the demand will still exist for the services that require energy that renewables cannot currently supply the demand for.