4 ms·

For a start, I can't even understand what is exactly the point of advocating any action against fossil fuel companies. After all, those companies only exist bec

by Udik 7y ago

For a start, I can't even understand what is exactly the point of advocating any action against fossil fuel companies. After all, those companies only exist because we, directly or indirectly, buy their products. And we buy their products because they're cheaper than the alternatives, or even irreplaceable. It's as if everybody were asking the government to take action against the supermarket where we all do our grocery shopping. We could ask the government to impose a heavy tax on our shopping (which we'd have to pay dearly, of course) but no, we want some action to be taken against the company that owns it. What is the purpose? Another commenter links an article on the Guardian that claims that only 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the global greenhouse gasses emissions. It's as if those companies were producing and consuming the fuel themselves. No, those companies sell fossil fuels to us, we are buying and consuming it. Am I being extraordinarily naive? Or this thing just doesn't make sense?

parasubvert 7y ago
It’s largely driven by people that don’t want to work within the market, they want to break the market, by starving supply / making it illegal. This tends to just lead to higher prices, black markets, riots, and right wing populist governments, but what do I know.
- Udik 7y ago
  The end result of any successful action to curb fossil fuel consumption will be (at least at the beginning) an increase in the price of products depending on them. So why don't people ask directly for more taxes on those products, to drive the demand towards better alternatives? It seems to me that the people don't want to take their share of responsibility and accept that the they'll have to bear the costs of the solution; and instead crave for some sort of empty vengeance on the companies whose products they keep buying.
  - parasubvert 7y ago
    Yep. In fairness the carbon tax approach might not work so well in practice as people can just vote in populists to repeal it. A regulatory framework of rising emissions standards ala California has the nanny state downside but is harder to undo (though Trump is giving it a college try). No where in the above does “let’s just put everyone we don’t like in jail” actually work unless you’re fond of terrorism and civil war..
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
The problem is dominated by structural issues and non-market forces. You can live the exact same lifestyle in France and US, and your carbon footprint will be almost 3 times higher in the US. Your personal buying habits cannot address the fact that energy grid is more carbon intensive from US, I cannot but electricity directly from a nuclear powerplant, UK government gives subsidies to fossil fuel companies, energy policy is politically decided, most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there, the list goes on and on.
- Udik 7y ago
  > Your personal buying habits cannot address... No, of course not. But the end result of any policy to curb fossil fuels consumption will be an increase in their price to the consumers and a shift of the demand to other sources. So why don't activist simply demand more taxes on those fuels, instead of blaming the companies that produce them? > most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there You're a buyer of the products made by companies that use fossil fuels; so yes, in the end you're a buyer too.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Many products could be produced without fossil fuels, but aren't. Like delivery company could get an electric truck. A consumer is powerless
    - Udik 7y ago
      > Many products could be produced without fossil fuels Sure. But at the same price, at least initially? A delivery company will change its fleet to electric trucks if it costs less. Otherwise, it means that the consumer has to pay the price difference.
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        For the most part ui ou are right, and that's fine. Boneheaded examples exist, like energy inefficient building in Uk

by Udik 7y ago

parasubvert 7y ago

It’s largely driven by people that don’t want to work within the market, they want to break the market, by starving supply / making it illegal. This tends to just lead to higher prices, black markets, riots, and right wing populist governments, but what do I know.

Udik 7y ago
The end result of any successful action to curb fossil fuel consumption will be (at least at the beginning) an increase in the price of products depending on them. So why don't people ask directly for more taxes on those products, to drive the demand towards better alternatives? It seems to me that the people don't want to take their share of responsibility and accept that the they'll have to bear the costs of the solution; and instead crave for some sort of empty vengeance on the companies whose products they keep buying.
- parasubvert 7y ago
  Yep. In fairness the carbon tax approach might not work so well in practice as people can just vote in populists to repeal it. A regulatory framework of rising emissions standards ala California has the nanny state downside but is harder to undo (though Trump is giving it a college try). No where in the above does “let’s just put everyone we don’t like in jail” actually work unless you’re fond of terrorism and civil war..

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

The problem is dominated by structural issues and non-market forces. You can live the exact same lifestyle in France and US, and your carbon footprint will be almost 3 times higher in the US. Your personal buying habits cannot address the fact that energy grid is more carbon intensive from US, I cannot but electricity directly from a nuclear powerplant, UK government gives subsidies to fossil fuel companies, energy policy is politically decided, most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there, the list goes on and on.

Udik 7y ago
> Your personal buying habits cannot address... No, of course not. But the end result of any policy to curb fossil fuels consumption will be an increase in their price to the consumers and a shift of the demand to other sources. So why don't activist simply demand more taxes on those fuels, instead of blaming the companies that produce them? > most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there You're a buyer of the products made by companies that use fossil fuels; so yes, in the end you're a buyer too.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Many products could be produced without fossil fuels, but aren't. Like delivery company could get an electric truck. A consumer is powerless
  - Udik 7y ago
    > Many products could be produced without fossil fuels Sure. But at the same price, at least initially? A delivery company will change its fleet to electric trucks if it costs less. Otherwise, it means that the consumer has to pay the price difference.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      For the most part ui ou are right, and that's fine. Boneheaded examples exist, like energy inefficient building in Uk