7 ms·
A Secret Recording Reveals Oil Executives’ Private Views on Climate Change
- bobobob420 6y agoThank you for linking to an article behind paywall so basically only people who pay to NYT can discuss it. I thought readers at HN were into open source and things like GNU
- agustif 6y agohttps://pastebin.com/YL7V8r0h https://pastebin.com/YL7V8r0h On a slow connection, if you cancel the request before the paywall loads you can read it. Lol 3rd world niceties
- andrewl 6y agoI'm able to view it in a private window in Firefox. Also, if you register for a free account with the New York Times you get a small number of articles free per month.
- sumedh 6y agoDo you also work for free and expect news to be always free?
- 52-6F-62 6y agoKind of ironic as well considering it was Bostock while at the NYT who released a number of widely used, and highly influential, open source libraries.
- bobobob420 6y agoI didn’t say it should be free. I just think if your sharing articles for discussion you should share ones that everyone can read
- sumedh 6y agoSometimes good article are behind a paywall, if you cannot access the an article using a workaround consider paying some money for those articles or just ignore it and move on.
- garraeth 6y agoSomething very similar was posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24441979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24441979 Which links to: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- tomhoward 6y agoHN's policies and norms around paywalled articles are well-established and oft-discussed. Here are two recents comments by moderator dang explaining his position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23824625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23824625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23255444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23255444 Workaround links for major news publications can usually be generated on https://archive.md https://archive.md. In this case: https://archive.md/YGrVx https://archive.md/YGrVx
- kbos87 6y agoThere’s so much attention aimed at proving climate change deniers wrong, or proving that petroleum executives know that climate change is real. These are valid pursuits, but I worry that they are also a convenient object of our anger. Really turning the tide on climate change is going to require everyone in modern society to swallow some tough pills around our daily routines and consumption patterns. Aiming all of our anger and blame and attention at corporations producing products that support the way of life we aren’t willing to change is denial and a waste of time.
- Retric 6y agoWe can fix climate change without changing electrical useage, driving habits, or really any habits at all. The only required day to day change worth noting is eliminating gas stoves which isn’t that critical or difficult for most people. The real issue is industry has little incentive to change. Airlines etc are hardly going to transition to more expensive options without economic incentives.
- mjburgess 6y agoThis isn't anywhere near true.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Retric 6y agoWhat specifically do you take issue with? A solar hot water heater or a gas water heater for example both just result in hot water on demand. We don’t use solar hot water heaters in the US even though their currently a cheaper alternative largely because of how houses are constructed and sold. People constructing sub divisions don’t care about your annual heating bills because home buyers don’t pay attention to that stuff.
- jacobush 6y agoIf switching stoves to electric fixed global heating was the solution, we would be there already. Edit: I took the gas stove hook too much probably
- cmehdy 6y agoI know they really need to ensure that they can buy their fourth house, but this sort of stuff is revealing just how much disconnect there is between those who push for oil and the coming generation: “What’s our message going forward?” Mr. Ness said. “What’s going to stick with those young people and make them support oil and gas?” Nothing, old man. Nothing. We'd need at least one covid per year to stay in line with the Paris agreements emissions-wise, and that would only curb the damage to a minimal amount. We're driving into a wall the size of a mountain, and we can't bother to decrease our ACCELERATION, let alone to actually SLOW DOWN. Younger generations are increasingly voicing how tired they are of the apathy about this issue - or sometimes, like in this case, downright evil approach to energy needs and climate change. If you want "those young people" to support your ass, use your lobbying powers to turn to nuclear for controllable energy and renewables for the rest. But that means no fourth house for you, huge investments upfront, and actually morals..
- robrenaud 6y agoHow many suburban 17 year olds are saying, no thanks, I'll continue to take the bus and not get my driver's license?
- naavis 6y agoQuite many outside USA, I would say.
- rthomas6 6y agoA lot, actually. The rate of people with driver's licenses in the US has been steadily decreasing since 1983.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cmehdy 6y agoThis is a false dichotomy. You could very well get your drivers license and have the ability to drive a car but not own one, for example. Reducing your consumption doesn't mean accepting something that prevents you from functioning at all. Everyone can improve things their own way, and oil isn't just there to power your damn car. Take a look around your place and tell me how much plastic is used around you. What about those plans to extend your house if you have one? What about perhaps investing that same money into increasing energy efficiency for your living space? The whole "think of those poor people who can't drive to work" thing is an absolutely false dichotomy. If you don't actually chip off the unnecessary bits of your energy and materials consumption in your life by your own choice, you will NOT have the choice over what gets chipped off. If you're 17 right now, this will very much affect you and your kids even by the time you reach the age of those execs.
- indy 6y ago“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
- qubex 6y agoI always thought that was due to Oscar Wilde but he gets credit for anything witty by default.
- throw0101a 6y ago* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
- cableshaft 6y agoI don't understand.
- refurb 6y agoThe irony is that Upton’s quote applies to him as well. He made quite a bit of money on his book about the meat packing industry that turned out to be not quite accurate.
- rdlecler1 6y agoPesky toxic waste. We should just dump it in the river.
- rbrbr 6y agoWhere can this recording being downloaded?
- gdubs 6y agoTl;dr, companies would rather not spend money complying with methane regulations. They’d rather try and win the messaging war. This is largely about the gas escaping during oil drilling. Big companies are more willing to play by the rules than the small companies. The execs made jokes about hippies “wanting to change the world” until they grew up, got jobs, and bought BMWs. It’s not the bombshell alluded to in the headline, but it’s somewhat interesting. Perhaps most interesting is their realization that activists are winning on the emotional messaging, and they need a shift in strategy.
- qubex 6y agoI’ve been in morally compromising situations before... so whereas I commiserate the situation these people are in I cannot bring myself to condemn them. Most public outrage is in the manufacture of caricatures and the failure to engage in nuance. Alright, light me up.
- danans 6y agoCriticism should be proportional to power. These are very rich, politically influential people, not nobodies like you and me on this message board. Their lobbying power by sheer dollar might as individuals and industries dwarfs that of most people. Therefore they they should be condemned when they are revealed in a lie involving the use of that power and influence, especially when that influence is changing rules to allow them to release massive quantities of methane into the atmosphere, worsening climate change.
- samfisher83 6y ago.
- XorNot 6y agoThis is both untrue and incredibly unproductive - born of a mishmash of puritan morals and modern problems. Do you use a dishwasher? You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. Yet people instinctively seem to think hand washing is better because it's harder work. No amount of energy use reduction is going to make a shred of difference if all our power comes from coal. Period. Everything else is secondary and non-fundamental: solar panels can be manufactured cleanly, and the consequences of mishandling still only pollute locally - serious, but not an uncontrollable global problem. Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it but boy does it shift blame away from them and encourage populism and dismissal in public discourse.
- danans 6y ago> Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it I totally agree with your broader point that we shouldn't rely on individual behavior change, but I think you are using a dated perspective of the left and the right. The modern left is actually proposing massive green infrastructure spending in order to shift the country's energy production away from fossil fuels (aka the Green New Deal). The modern right has turned the use of fossil fuels into an identity politics issue, as if you become less American somehow if you use less coal and petroleum to power your life. The corporations are going where their business models and customer constituencies take them, which is why tech has invested heavily in renewables, and fossil fuel companies have balkanized around their products. The automobile industry is in limbo between the two, with a foot in both worlds.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- wcerfgba 6y agoIf you would like to help to solve the climate crisis, you may be interested in https://climateaction.tech/ https://climateaction.tech/ If you have any other useful resources, please reply :)
- justcomments12 6y agoMaybe https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineering https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineerin... getting pure co2 from the air is profitable, because it is used in soda etc. The challenge is to get it pure, but climate is a huge business opportunity
- rudiv 6y agoIt's amazing how many people have swallowed the line that stopping anthropogenic global warming is mostly about individual choices when there is clear evidence to show that the very same idea has been propagated primarily by the industries responsible for the majority of pollution.
- beervirus 6y ago1. These aren’t oil executives. They’re lobbyists. 2. There’s nothing in here about their private views on climate change. They’re talking about how they’re worried people will perceive the flaring of natural gas.
- ryanmarsh 6y agoI guarantee similar conversations have been had at all large companies with negative externalities: tech, pharma, banks, etc...
- x87678r 6y agoThe real issue is how come gas is $2 a gallon still? Its unbelievably cheap. I ran AC pretty much full time the whole summer and the bill was $400. Energy is way too cheap in the US.
- dencodev 6y agoStill nearly $4 here on west coast
- tito 6y agoThe greatest resistance to solving climate change is the people who know it's happening, want to do something, but don't know where to start. All this other stuff is noise. Let's go!
- tasty_freeze 6y agoMany free market people complain about restrictive laws, but I 100% believe if there wasn't a law prohibiting, say, putting lead in food or dumping mercury into the water table, there would be CEOs who wouldn't hesitate to do those things if it made them a little bit of money, despite knowing how awful the consequences are. Likewise, there is nothing which will stop CEOs from ruining the environment unless the externalities of their industries cost them money. It doesn't matter how many scientific pronouncements are made or if the CEOs of gas and oil companies know in their heart of hearts what they are doing has terrible long term consequences, they will continue on the current course. Yes, individuals can help by choosing to driving less and changing their thermostat, but many/most won't do enough. The most free market solution is to make the polluting companies pay for their externalities. Yes, dividends will go down. Yes, the costs of some goods will go up, but only up to their true costs since we won't be giving the companies a free pass to use the atmosphere as a trash can. Once things have their full costs baked in, everyone will adjust their consumption, not just the environmentally conscious. I doubt even that is enough, but it is more than we are currently doing.
- dencodev 6y agoIt's very telling that we had to create child labor laws. Someone had to be told that it was immoral and strictly forbidden from doing it.
- merricksb 6y agohttps://archive.md/YGrVx https://archive.md/YGrVx