4 ms·

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 gas

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.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions. I assume you read my post at the top and saw this: A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns. I also assume you've done research and seen these: (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... and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...) Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says and "There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two." Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change. Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change. So, assuming you have done that research and have seen those, would you mind clarifying what you are saying? > But we cannot control that. At the very least there should be accountability that the deliberate, malicious actions of these (more or less) 90 people have put the entire species at risk. The point here is that they had enough warning and time to diversify to nuclear and renewable energy, but instead of doing that they covered it up and put us in an impossible position.

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.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions. I assume you read my post at the top and saw this: A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns. I also assume you've done research and seen these: (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... and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...) Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says and "There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two." Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change. Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change. So, assuming you have done that research and have seen those, would you mind clarifying what you are saying? > But we cannot control that. At the very least there should be accountability that the deliberate, malicious actions of these (more or less) 90 people have put the entire species at risk. The point here is that they had enough warning and time to diversify to nuclear and renewable energy, but instead of doing that they covered it up and put us in an impossible position.