4 ms·
> People need to take responsibility at some point. Such as by enacting environmental laws. Advocating for boycotts as the only course of action is equivalent
by deogeo 7y ago
> People need to take responsibility at some point.
Such as by enacting environmental laws.
Advocating for boycotts as the only course of action is equivalent to letting the behavior continue, because they hardly ever work. If you want results, you need collective action - i.e. laws.
- tathougies 7y agoEnacting environmental laws enforces a boycott by forcing individuals to consume less of the thing. Any regulation on oil (which I'm not particularly opposed to) has the effect of increasing the prices of the things derived from it, which forces less consumption since people cannot afford it. Either way, the oil company is harmed. A similar thing can be achieved (albeit with more money for other government programs) by placing a consumption tax on oil and oil-based products. Great! But, that does not obviate anyone of the fact that their desire for oil-based products is what keeps these billion dollar companies alive. That is the reason why the exist The article places the blame for the current situation on the oil companies. This is ridiculous. The oil companies started to meet a demand, not because some group of people met and decided to ruin the environment and then convince people they needed oil, which is what anyone accepting the article's main point has to believe.
- julvo 7y agoI don't think it's that simple anymore, as there are other forces at play. The political influence of large, established industries can make sure that things stay as they are and the consumer demands will be met by them, not by new technologies. People don't demand fuel cars, they demand affordable, reliable long range cars. Same holds for electricity, people don't demand electricity from a specific source. But currently some sources meet the demands more than others. Legislation could lead to alternative sources becoming better at meeting people's demands i.e. becoming cheaper, reliable etc. Generally, large industries have momentum which keeps them going, and therefore the way the meet demand is not necessarily the optimal way for consumers/the environment.
- tathougies 7y ago> Legislation could lead to alternative sources becoming better at meeting people's demands i.e. becoming cheaper, reliable etc. So the argument here is we can legislate scientific progress? That's ridiculous
- deogeo 7y agoIndirectly, you can. Fund research, or change regulations/taxes to make more environmentally friendly sources cheaper (if you're of a libertarian bent, you can think of this as pricing in the externalities). Since the alternative energy source is now cheaper, it receives more private funding, both for capacity construction, and for research.
- tathougies 7y agoOkay, but in none of these scenarios is the 'oil industry' the bad guy. They are simply one industry providing one good that people currently desire with great fervor. All your solutions, ultimately still require personal change. That is fine, since that's the way this will get solved, but none of your points even make much sense. For example, in my area, our electricity is already generated cheaply by renewables, but we end up being required to pay the state mandated electricity company for 'distribution'. This unnecessary intrusion into the free market on behalf of the state is ridiculous, but again, the oil industry isn't to blame. Firstly, because the utility company is not an oil company, and secondly, because the ultimate bad guy is the state, not any private company.