7 ms·

Missing the forest for the trees is a very human thing to do. The real problem is that we stubbornly ignore the forest even when we know its there. e.g. Many

by beloch 6y ago

Missing the forest for the trees is a very human thing to do. The real problem is that we stubbornly ignore the forest even when we know its there. e.g. Many environmentalists think that, if we can just stop building pipelines, fuel will become more expensive and people (usually other, poorer people) will drive less. This attitude helped prevent a key pipeline in Canada (Energy East) from being built. This pipeline would have sent oil from Western Canada to Eastern Canada, which currently imports a significant portion of it's oil by tanker from foreign countries. Now Alberta oil is being shipped West, put on panamax tankers in Vancouver, sailed through the Panama Canal, and then up to the East coast of Canada. There it is bought for the same prices as foreign oil by Canadian refineries. All that's happened is some oil companies are making less money per barrel because of transport expenses. This wasteful route hasn't impacted fuel prices in Eastern Canada at all. The forest in this case, is that people need to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles or EV's, and build communities that require less driving. However, I have no doubt that I will get an earful from someone for daring to suggest that an oil pipeline could be a good thing for the environment. To be clear, I am specifically saying that the Energy East pipeline would have been more environmentally friendly than shipping oil from Western to Eastern Canada via the Panama canal. Too much of popular environmentalism is utterly unscientific and harmful to the environment. It's not just the "eat local" fad.

graeme 6y ago
> All that's happened is some oil companies are making less money per barrel because of transport expenses. This reduces fuel supply, shifting the supply curve left. Ceteris paribus, this increases the world price for fuel.
- beloch 6y ago
  The slight change in world oil prices is entirely due to the cost of burning fuel to transport oil around a continent. There is literally no upside here.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Fuel costs are well under 100% of transport costs. Well, well under. This says 20-40%, and ship costs are not the only costs associated with transport, so it’s an even smaller fraction of total cost. https://www.morethanshipping.com/imo-2020-and-oil-prices-in-shipping/ https://www.morethanshipping.com/imo-2020-and-oil-prices-in-... Moreover, the total energy being transported is surely much higher than the oil burned. That’s the key feature of oil....it is energy dense!
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Too much of popular environmentalism is utterly unscientific and harmful to the environment. It's not just the "eat local" fad. Because paying higher prices is okay, especially if you can afford it and others can’t. But the real problem is excess consumption, and the solution is eating less overall, which no one wants to do. Reducing quality of life is the forest, but who wants to do that for future generations’ benefit?
- harimau777 6y ago
  I think that first we would need to create a society where people have enough quality of life to be able to give some up.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works. I'm broadly in favor of making society more equitable, but I'm wary of the idea that we can solve both at once. The purveyors of the "Green New Deal" disagree with me, and I'm not at all opposed to what they're doing—but I worry that, the more problems you try to address at once, the harder it is to reach broad consensus. We need to fix climate change. A simple carbon tax, by the way, could also alleviate this problem, by distributing the proceeds back to the populace.
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    Which they will use to drive fancy cars.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Oh yes, I agree an appropriate tax on fuel is the best way to tackle the problem of overconsumption. The appropriateness will be evident once it motivates more dense living and reduced personal car usage and other changes that reduce excess consumption.
  - rvense 6y ago
    > We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works. Maybe we could work on that somehow, seeing as how the rich you are, the bigger your environmental footprint tends to. Someone who's spending all the money on food vs. someone who has to try really, really hard to spend all their money. Anecdote: a few years ago, I was talking about summer holidays with my boss - I was going by coach to Berlin; he was taking his family to Japan to ski and would be going by helicopter daily from his hotel to the better, remote slopes. Maybe a 50% carbon tax would've meant I stayed at home entirely, but he wasn't the type to worry about money at all, so... yeah.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I don't believe it's merely a failure to be driven by data. Rather, it's a willful campaign by major corporations to shift responsibility away from themselves—and ultimately ensure nothing gets done in the process. Perhaps not so much for oil pipelines, but certainly for "eat local". NPR did a great podcast episode on how plastic manufacturers responded to environmental concerns in the last century: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617
imtringued 6y ago
I'm not sure how arbitrary rules are supposed to create incentives. The bans should be based on how much harm something creates and the harm of shipping vs a pipeline is pretty much the same because you end up burning fossil fuels. Instead of saying "oil is harmful" you end up saying "oil is totally fine as long as you don't use pipelines".
Brian_K_White 6y ago
There is a perfectly valid argument to be made for not helping to do a bad thing more efficiently. Sand in a machine that you don't want, is not necessarily a bad thing, even if right now today, because of inertia, you still need the machine. The people who own the machine and get the most out of it disagree, but I don't think anyone has any obligation to care about them. I think, you don't get to call it short-sighted or ignorant. You only get to call it a position and a course of action you don't agree with. Otherwise, I would say that anyone making the argument you are making is the short-sighted and ignorant one. Being unwilling to suffer any pain today as part of a long term investment to bring about some eventual change, instead just handwaving that something should happen ("people should use more renewable energy") without suggesting how it could be done or putting up with any inconvenience to see it done. My guess you would object to that.

by beloch 6y ago

graeme 6y ago

> All that's happened is some oil companies are making less money per barrel because of transport expenses. This reduces fuel supply, shifting the supply curve left. Ceteris paribus, this increases the world price for fuel.

beloch 6y ago
The slight change in world oil prices is entirely due to the cost of burning fuel to transport oil around a continent. There is literally no upside here.
- graeme 6y ago
  Fuel costs are well under 100% of transport costs. Well, well under. This says 20-40%, and ship costs are not the only costs associated with transport, so it’s an even smaller fraction of total cost. https://www.morethanshipping.com/imo-2020-and-oil-prices-in-shipping/ https://www.morethanshipping.com/imo-2020-and-oil-prices-in-... Moreover, the total energy being transported is surely much higher than the oil burned. That’s the key feature of oil....it is energy dense!

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> Too much of popular environmentalism is utterly unscientific and harmful to the environment. It's not just the "eat local" fad. Because paying higher prices is okay, especially if you can afford it and others can’t. But the real problem is excess consumption, and the solution is eating less overall, which no one wants to do. Reducing quality of life is the forest, but who wants to do that for future generations’ benefit?

harimau777 6y ago
I think that first we would need to create a society where people have enough quality of life to be able to give some up.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works. I'm broadly in favor of making society more equitable, but I'm wary of the idea that we can solve both at once. The purveyors of the "Green New Deal" disagree with me, and I'm not at all opposed to what they're doing—but I worry that, the more problems you try to address at once, the harder it is to reach broad consensus. We need to fix climate change. A simple carbon tax, by the way, could also alleviate this problem, by distributing the proceeds back to the populace.
- mrmonkeyman 6y ago
  Which they will use to drive fancy cars.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Oh yes, I agree an appropriate tax on fuel is the best way to tackle the problem of overconsumption. The appropriateness will be evident once it motivates more dense living and reduced personal car usage and other changes that reduce excess consumption.
- rvense 6y ago
  > We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works. Maybe we could work on that somehow, seeing as how the rich you are, the bigger your environmental footprint tends to. Someone who's spending all the money on food vs. someone who has to try really, really hard to spend all their money. Anecdote: a few years ago, I was talking about summer holidays with my boss - I was going by coach to Berlin; he was taking his family to Japan to ski and would be going by helicopter daily from his hotel to the better, remote slopes. Maybe a 50% carbon tax would've meant I stayed at home entirely, but he wasn't the type to worry about money at all, so... yeah.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

I don't believe it's merely a failure to be driven by data. Rather, it's a willful campaign by major corporations to shift responsibility away from themselves—and ultimately ensure nothing gets done in the process. Perhaps not so much for oil pipelines, but certainly for "eat local". NPR did a great podcast episode on how plastic manufacturers responded to environmental concerns in the last century: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617

imtringued 6y ago

I'm not sure how arbitrary rules are supposed to create incentives. The bans should be based on how much harm something creates and the harm of shipping vs a pipeline is pretty much the same because you end up burning fossil fuels. Instead of saying "oil is harmful" you end up saying "oil is totally fine as long as you don't use pipelines".

Brian_K_White 6y ago

There is a perfectly valid argument to be made for not helping to do a bad thing more efficiently. Sand in a machine that you don't want, is not necessarily a bad thing, even if right now today, because of inertia, you still need the machine. The people who own the machine and get the most out of it disagree, but I don't think anyone has any obligation to care about them. I think, you don't get to call it short-sighted or ignorant. You only get to call it a position and a course of action you don't agree with. Otherwise, I would say that anyone making the argument you are making is the short-sighted and ignorant one. Being unwilling to suffer any pain today as part of a long term investment to bring about some eventual change, instead just handwaving that something should happen ("people should use more renewable energy") without suggesting how it could be done or putting up with any inconvenience to see it done. My guess you would object to that.