4 ms·

> 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

by fao_ 8y 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.

artimaeis 8y ago
Companies only exist while there is some demand that they can fulfill. There's exceptions -- companies that manipulate the system. And of course we should expect that most companies are trying to manipulate the system to generally increase the demand for the goods they produce. But that demand is real. This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change. I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive. Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable. No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in. Regulation and enforcement are the only tools we've developed that seem to have any chance of working -- and we need to seriously improve upon those tools so that we can better enact change on a global level. It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand.
- fao_ 8y ago
  > But that demand is real. But you just stated that that demand is not real. That most companies artificially manipulate demand, implies that a majority of the demand is not real. Furthermore, talking generally as you are doing, obscures the point. The demand for unsustainable, literal-killing-the-planet-and-the-species energy, would not exist if it were not for a handful of companies covering up scientific research, and lobbying politically to ensure that they are never held accountable. > This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change > > I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive. Why? I find the idea of the death of anyone, revolting. I am usually the first person to argue against the death penalty. In this specific instance, I find it completely and utterly inexcusable that these people chose to enable the death of billions of people, to put entire ecosystems and millions of species at risk, and trillions of lifeforms, just so they could continue maintaining a profit. If a large amount of countries around the world, and states in America, can agree that it is just to put someone to death for harming someone, then the same people should unequivocally accept it's use in this instance. This isn't just a bad thing for the people to have done, there really is no other example in history. The number of deaths from the Holocaust literally pales in comparison to the amount of death that those individuals have tangibly, provably manipulated, all for the sake of profit. If that comparison feels far-fetched, please remember that it is not over-the-top to state that the actions these people have taken, and continue to take through their inaction, are literally causing a mass-extinction. If I conspired to throw the asteroid that caused the KT Extinction at the Earth, I would be held culpable, no? Of course, perhaps it would be better to keep them alive, strip them of their wealth, and let them ride out the disaster they have created along with everyone else. > Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable. That's past tense. They have not just done bad things, they are continuing to do bad things, and they are manipulating things so that they will, for the foreseeable future continue to do 'bad' things. > No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in. I agree. The companies cannot do anything to save us at this point. They should be seized by the state and put on a path to renewable energy, or otherwise shut down. > It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand. Oh I see, so nobody is responsible then? Or are you trying to argue that the state is responsible, or that the people are responsible?

by fao_ 8y ago

artimaeis 8y ago

Companies only exist while there is some demand that they can fulfill. There's exceptions -- companies that manipulate the system. And of course we should expect that most companies are trying to manipulate the system to generally increase the demand for the goods they produce. But that demand is real. This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change. I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive. Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable. No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in. Regulation and enforcement are the only tools we've developed that seem to have any chance of working -- and we need to seriously improve upon those tools so that we can better enact change on a global level. It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand.

fao_ 8y ago
> But that demand is real. But you just stated that that demand is not real. That most companies artificially manipulate demand, implies that a majority of the demand is not real. Furthermore, talking generally as you are doing, obscures the point. The demand for unsustainable, literal-killing-the-planet-and-the-species energy, would not exist if it were not for a handful of companies covering up scientific research, and lobbying politically to ensure that they are never held accountable. > This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change > > I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive. Why? I find the idea of the death of anyone, revolting. I am usually the first person to argue against the death penalty. In this specific instance, I find it completely and utterly inexcusable that these people chose to enable the death of billions of people, to put entire ecosystems and millions of species at risk, and trillions of lifeforms, just so they could continue maintaining a profit. If a large amount of countries around the world, and states in America, can agree that it is just to put someone to death for harming someone, then the same people should unequivocally accept it's use in this instance. This isn't just a bad thing for the people to have done, there really is no other example in history. The number of deaths from the Holocaust literally pales in comparison to the amount of death that those individuals have tangibly, provably manipulated, all for the sake of profit. If that comparison feels far-fetched, please remember that it is not over-the-top to state that the actions these people have taken, and continue to take through their inaction, are literally causing a mass-extinction. If I conspired to throw the asteroid that caused the KT Extinction at the Earth, I would be held culpable, no? Of course, perhaps it would be better to keep them alive, strip them of their wealth, and let them ride out the disaster they have created along with everyone else. > Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable. That's past tense. They have not just done bad things, they are continuing to do bad things, and they are manipulating things so that they will, for the foreseeable future continue to do 'bad' things. > No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in. I agree. The companies cannot do anything to save us at this point. They should be seized by the state and put on a path to renewable energy, or otherwise shut down. > It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand. Oh I see, so nobody is responsible then? Or are you trying to argue that the state is responsible, or that the people are responsible?