7 ms·

I 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

by cmehdy 6y ago

I 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 ago
How 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 ago
  Quite many outside USA, I would say.
- rthomas6 6y ago
  A 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 ago
  This 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.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  It is no longer necessary to use oil to power automobiles. You can have your car and reduce fossil fuel use at the same time.
  - cultus 6y ago
    Not really. Personal cars are just not a sustainable solution. Personal electric cars are less worse, but still are large machines toxic batteries and still require massively more energy than is necessary for the task of moving their comparatively small human occupants. They have a large embedded carbon and ecological cost. We need better density and better transit so they aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. Besides, cars are miserable in cities. Cities with extensive metro systems such as Paris or New York are far more livable than ones like Los Angeles or Seattle.
- JeremyNT 6y ago
  These kinds of small changes are meaningless and do nothing beyond assuaging one's own guilt and virtue signaling. This kind of system failure cannot be fixed by "voting with your wallet;" nobody actually pays the cost of fossil fuel usage directly, and so people will continue to make money at the expense of society as a whole. The kind of changes required here are well beyond any individual's ability to enact directly. The nature of capitalism and resource exploitation needs to be fundamentally and seriously reevaluated. This is the world we are leaving to our children. Complaining about kids not using the bus, or implying that it's somehow hypocritical to do so, is just victim blaming.
mrmonkeyman 6y ago
Greed as the root cause is a very narrow and very naive view IMO. These guys were young too once, you know. Stop the judgemental bullshit. The "younger" generation will fuck shit up too, different things perhaps.
fartcannon 6y ago
As a former young man, and current middle aged man, my perspectice is this: Those old men were young people once, not long ago. You might not compromise your values, but in reality, you probably will. And your peers definitely will. A few generations will grow up and suddenly, you're the bad guy because, oh I dunno, all your cell phones and tablets used up all the bismuth or something. And you'll get old one day too, desperately holding onto the thing that lets you retire. Again maybe not you, but your peers will. That said, it's not that you shouldnt keep trying, it's just interesting how it happens. We should break the cycle of blame, and make a lateral move to create the future we want on a new path. It makes me think, "Render unto Ceasar".
- caymanjim 6y ago
  Exactly this. Young people have plenty of outrage to go around, and they think they can change the world. Most of them don't do anything about it, though; they just get outraged, virtue signal on social media, change meaningless behaviors (but make sure everyone knows they did), and carry on exactly as their parents did. Things in the world move slowly, and after a decade or two of caring (or at least aggressively claiming to care), young people turn into old, cynical, jaded realists. I vote. I make small, pragmatic changes to how I interact with the world. I see what happens over the course of many decades and how slowly things move. In the end I'm glad I won't be around to see how terrible it's going to be in 100 years. Good luck.
  - havelhovel 6y ago
    On the other hand, there’s the suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement, the Velvet Revolution, etc. If less people made excuses and instead joined the youth, change might happen.
  - cmehdy 6y ago
    The end of your message is so much worse than whatever you imagine young people to be doing. "Good luck", really? Condescending much? Also you're pretty damn wrong about those young people: they're way more active than you think. But you seem to be quite aware that it's going to be terrible in a few decades yet you're happy simply making small changes and seeing "what happens over the course of many decades". Wilful ignorance much? The cognitive dissonance in your words is strong, and instead of actually looking inwards you're content thinking that the people who are barely out of their teenage years should bear the blame for being born with a smartphone in their pockets (thanks to which generations again?). I sure am glad that they aren't learning from your attitude as they work towards being in a position to be directors or politicians or CEOs. You or I might not be there to see the worst of it, but I'd take their attitude over yours any day of the week. edit to the person pointing out the word "decades": I replied to a message on their own terms. I'm fully aware that things are unravelling right now, but I don't even need to shift the point and start another debate in order to prove them logically wrong.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> Nothing, old man. Nothing. Actually rolling blackouts is enough to support at least some natural gas power generation.
- zbrozek 6y ago
  During a heat wave last weekend my power cut out and I started shopping for natural gas generators. At the rate that electricity prices have been increasing lately, it's not even insane to think about running off of the generator full time.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    The PGE guide for net metering actually makes a point that it wouldn’t be economical to run a generator and make money off net metering, but I did the math and it’s actually a decent amount cheaper to do so.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      .. what is wrong with your electricity market? What numbers did you conclude?
- cmehdy 6y ago
  That's true. In the absence of nuclear that's going to be the case. That is, until you can't afford to buy the gas anyway. It would have been more to-the-point and sincere of them to discuss ways to mess with people so that they encourage further consumption of energy sources that are running out on the scale of our current civilization.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Not for me, I'll take nuclear over natural gas any day.
shoguning 6y ago
Most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do but the majority wouldn't do anything if it meant a sacrifice, even a very small one. 68% wouldn't pay even $10 per month [1]. Imagine how few would pay $25, $100, or live in a smaller house. The people running big companies aren't "nice guys" and that's true in all sectors. But the oil and gas cos are just selling people what they want. If they are evil for selling it then so are the customers for buying it. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...
- kohtatsu 6y ago
  I'm not convinced this poll is much indication of anything; it's just asking about a weird carbon tax scheme. > Suppose a proposal was on the ballot next year to add a monthly fee to consumers' monthly electricity bill to combat climate change. If this proposal passes, it would cost your household $____ every month. Would you vote in favor of this monthly fee to combat climate change, or would you vote against this monthly fee? $1/month: 57% favor $10/month: 28% favor $20/month: 30% favor $40/month: 23% favor $75/month: 15% favor $100/month: 16% favor A more useful question would be: "Would you oppose climate change regulations that had the effect of increasing your energy bills $10/month?"
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    It's a dumb proposition to begin with. Why am I paying extra just so that these companies can implement these changes without dinging profits? Energy should be a loss-leader for society. It should lose money every year, and then we pay whatever is necessary for them to break even and continue operating. This goes for healthcare, housing, transportation, and education, too. If you want to "innovate" gainfully, pick up a paintbrush. We shouldn't be subsidizing the profits of mature sectors, especially if they're not actually doing anything new and simply doubling down on the behaviors that are leading us to ruin.
- lazulicurio 6y ago
  Let's just say that I find that survey less than convincing. The wording of the question almost certainly calls to mind bills with tacked-on “convenience” fees that serve to enrich companies more than provide convenience to the consumer. What does “pay $10 extra a month to combat climate change” even mean? You'd probably get a different response to “Would you switch to an energy company that uses 100% {solar/nuclear/etc.} if it costed ${5/10/etc.} more per month than your current bill”.
II2II 6y ago
It is not just industry leaders that oppose change. I also suspect that the apathy of the old is far over stated, and can be tackled if the conversation changed. A large number of people are going to be apathetic since they simply have other priorities in life. Perhaps they have a family to support or maybe they are more interested in social issues than environmental ones. This does not imply that they do not care. Then you have people who's livelihoods depend upon the petrochemical industry, either directly or indirectly. Very few of these people have the means or ability to drive change and many of them can only see themselves as the victims of change. One of the issues with the messaging of environmentalists are the dire warnings at the expense of envisioning a cleaner future, making people feel more like victims than a part of the solution. The few who do talk about a cleaner future need to be more assertive about how we will benefit from it and how we can make a smooth transition, so that people won't feel as though it is an endless stream of compromise nor will they feel as though they will lose their role in society. Environmentalists should also be highlighting past successes as a means of encouraging future action. We live in a world that is much more aware of our impact on the environment. We have cleaner air and water to thank for past efforts, while some industries are more sustainable for it. We used to fish until stocks ran out, clear cut with no or limited replanting, contaminate our waterways with the pesticides and through the dumping of industrial waste, and pollute our air with much more hazardous gasses and particulates than we do today. None of that would have changed without if people didn't initiate the change. We need to emphasize that the economy did not collapse for that change. Creating change is only an us verses them issue if we choose to frame the issue in those terms. It is only about young verses old or rich verses poor if we choose to frame it in those terms. We need to get away from those framings in part because the prejudice turns off potential supporters and in part because it makes us blind to the needs that must be addressed while finding the solution.

by cmehdy 6y ago

robrenaud 6y ago

How 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 ago
Quite many outside USA, I would say.
rthomas6 6y ago
A 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 ago
This 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.
throw0101a 6y ago
It is no longer necessary to use oil to power automobiles. You can have your car and reduce fossil fuel use at the same time.
- cultus 6y ago
  Not really. Personal cars are just not a sustainable solution. Personal electric cars are less worse, but still are large machines toxic batteries and still require massively more energy than is necessary for the task of moving their comparatively small human occupants. They have a large embedded carbon and ecological cost. We need better density and better transit so they aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. Besides, cars are miserable in cities. Cities with extensive metro systems such as Paris or New York are far more livable than ones like Los Angeles or Seattle.
JeremyNT 6y ago
These kinds of small changes are meaningless and do nothing beyond assuaging one's own guilt and virtue signaling. This kind of system failure cannot be fixed by "voting with your wallet;" nobody actually pays the cost of fossil fuel usage directly, and so people will continue to make money at the expense of society as a whole. The kind of changes required here are well beyond any individual's ability to enact directly. The nature of capitalism and resource exploitation needs to be fundamentally and seriously reevaluated. This is the world we are leaving to our children. Complaining about kids not using the bus, or implying that it's somehow hypocritical to do so, is just victim blaming.

mrmonkeyman 6y ago

Greed as the root cause is a very narrow and very naive view IMO. These guys were young too once, you know. Stop the judgemental bullshit. The "younger" generation will fuck shit up too, different things perhaps.

fartcannon 6y ago

As a former young man, and current middle aged man, my perspectice is this: Those old men were young people once, not long ago. You might not compromise your values, but in reality, you probably will. And your peers definitely will. A few generations will grow up and suddenly, you're the bad guy because, oh I dunno, all your cell phones and tablets used up all the bismuth or something. And you'll get old one day too, desperately holding onto the thing that lets you retire. Again maybe not you, but your peers will. That said, it's not that you shouldnt keep trying, it's just interesting how it happens. We should break the cycle of blame, and make a lateral move to create the future we want on a new path. It makes me think, "Render unto Ceasar".

caymanjim 6y ago
Exactly this. Young people have plenty of outrage to go around, and they think they can change the world. Most of them don't do anything about it, though; they just get outraged, virtue signal on social media, change meaningless behaviors (but make sure everyone knows they did), and carry on exactly as their parents did. Things in the world move slowly, and after a decade or two of caring (or at least aggressively claiming to care), young people turn into old, cynical, jaded realists. I vote. I make small, pragmatic changes to how I interact with the world. I see what happens over the course of many decades and how slowly things move. In the end I'm glad I won't be around to see how terrible it's going to be in 100 years. Good luck.
- havelhovel 6y ago
  On the other hand, there’s the suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement, the Velvet Revolution, etc. If less people made excuses and instead joined the youth, change might happen.
- cmehdy 6y ago
  The end of your message is so much worse than whatever you imagine young people to be doing. "Good luck", really? Condescending much? Also you're pretty damn wrong about those young people: they're way more active than you think. But you seem to be quite aware that it's going to be terrible in a few decades yet you're happy simply making small changes and seeing "what happens over the course of many decades". Wilful ignorance much? The cognitive dissonance in your words is strong, and instead of actually looking inwards you're content thinking that the people who are barely out of their teenage years should bear the blame for being born with a smartphone in their pockets (thanks to which generations again?). I sure am glad that they aren't learning from your attitude as they work towards being in a position to be directors or politicians or CEOs. You or I might not be there to see the worst of it, but I'd take their attitude over yours any day of the week. edit to the person pointing out the word "decades": I replied to a message on their own terms. I'm fully aware that things are unravelling right now, but I don't even need to shift the point and start another debate in order to prove them logically wrong.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

> Nothing, old man. Nothing. Actually rolling blackouts is enough to support at least some natural gas power generation.

zbrozek 6y ago
During a heat wave last weekend my power cut out and I started shopping for natural gas generators. At the rate that electricity prices have been increasing lately, it's not even insane to think about running off of the generator full time.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  The PGE guide for net metering actually makes a point that it wouldn’t be economical to run a generator and make money off net metering, but I did the math and it’s actually a decent amount cheaper to do so.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    .. what is wrong with your electricity market? What numbers did you conclude?
cmehdy 6y ago
That's true. In the absence of nuclear that's going to be the case. That is, until you can't afford to buy the gas anyway. It would have been more to-the-point and sincere of them to discuss ways to mess with people so that they encourage further consumption of energy sources that are running out on the scale of our current civilization.
DennisP 6y ago
Not for me, I'll take nuclear over natural gas any day.

shoguning 6y ago

Most people don't care about climate change. They may say they do but the majority wouldn't do anything if it meant a sacrifice, even a very small one. 68% wouldn't pay even $10 per month [1]. Imagine how few would pay $25, $100, or live in a smaller house. The people running big companies aren't "nice guys" and that's true in all sectors. But the oil and gas cos are just selling people what they want. If they are evil for selling it then so are the customers for buying it. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...

kohtatsu 6y ago
I'm not convinced this poll is much indication of anything; it's just asking about a weird carbon tax scheme. > Suppose a proposal was on the ballot next year to add a monthly fee to consumers' monthly electricity bill to combat climate change. If this proposal passes, it would cost your household $____ every month. Would you vote in favor of this monthly fee to combat climate change, or would you vote against this monthly fee? $1/month: 57% favor $10/month: 28% favor $20/month: 30% favor $40/month: 23% favor $75/month: 15% favor $100/month: 16% favor A more useful question would be: "Would you oppose climate change regulations that had the effect of increasing your energy bills $10/month?"
- bsanr2 6y ago
  It's a dumb proposition to begin with. Why am I paying extra just so that these companies can implement these changes without dinging profits? Energy should be a loss-leader for society. It should lose money every year, and then we pay whatever is necessary for them to break even and continue operating. This goes for healthcare, housing, transportation, and education, too. If you want to "innovate" gainfully, pick up a paintbrush. We shouldn't be subsidizing the profits of mature sectors, especially if they're not actually doing anything new and simply doubling down on the behaviors that are leading us to ruin.
lazulicurio 6y ago
Let's just say that I find that survey less than convincing. The wording of the question almost certainly calls to mind bills with tacked-on “convenience” fees that serve to enrich companies more than provide convenience to the consumer. What does “pay $10 extra a month to combat climate change” even mean? You'd probably get a different response to “Would you switch to an energy company that uses 100% {solar/nuclear/etc.} if it costed ${5/10/etc.} more per month than your current bill”.

II2II 6y ago

It is not just industry leaders that oppose change. I also suspect that the apathy of the old is far over stated, and can be tackled if the conversation changed. A large number of people are going to be apathetic since they simply have other priorities in life. Perhaps they have a family to support or maybe they are more interested in social issues than environmental ones. This does not imply that they do not care. Then you have people who's livelihoods depend upon the petrochemical industry, either directly or indirectly. Very few of these people have the means or ability to drive change and many of them can only see themselves as the victims of change. One of the issues with the messaging of environmentalists are the dire warnings at the expense of envisioning a cleaner future, making people feel more like victims than a part of the solution. The few who do talk about a cleaner future need to be more assertive about how we will benefit from it and how we can make a smooth transition, so that people won't feel as though it is an endless stream of compromise nor will they feel as though they will lose their role in society. Environmentalists should also be highlighting past successes as a means of encouraging future action. We live in a world that is much more aware of our impact on the environment. We have cleaner air and water to thank for past efforts, while some industries are more sustainable for it. We used to fish until stocks ran out, clear cut with no or limited replanting, contaminate our waterways with the pesticides and through the dumping of industrial waste, and pollute our air with much more hazardous gasses and particulates than we do today. None of that would have changed without if people didn't initiate the change. We need to emphasize that the economy did not collapse for that change. Creating change is only an us verses them issue if we choose to frame the issue in those terms. It is only about young verses old or rich verses poor if we choose to frame it in those terms. We need to get away from those framings in part because the prejudice turns off potential supporters and in part because it makes us blind to the needs that must be addressed while finding the solution.