5 ms·

The point wasn't missed, because the predicate of global warming is not in question here. > And where else in the USA has been a bastion of oil/petrochemical i

by beaner 6y ago

The point wasn't missed, because the predicate of global warming is not in question here. > And where else in the USA has been a bastion of oil/petrochemical industry climate change denialism, than Texas This is a ridiculous statement.

walrus01 6y ago
It's factually true - unless you believe the phenomenon of climate change denialism itself does not exist. Follow the money. Who funds it? Primarily Houston headquartered oil and gas companies. Or if not headquartered in Houston, with very significant operations in texas and its oil industry. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...
- imgabe 6y ago
  What are you hoping to prove with this? In terms of what they are actually doing, it sounds like they're installing a lot of renewable energy. Indeed, more than most places. Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? What does it matter who believes what if the real things that are actually happening are that they build a lot of renewable energy sources?
  - filoeleven 6y ago
    > Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? Expect them to? No. Wish for it? Yeah, definitely. And then hold them accountable for the decades of gaslighting while they knew that was the case. That’s kind of the role of a government. How is GameStop stock more controversial than climate change denial? GameStop is ephemeral, climate change is existential. The easy thing is to say “bankrupt the fuckers, kill the orgs!” and I feel that. I want to see them suffer for the path they’ve put the whole planet on. The responsible societal thing to do though is probably to mandate renewables, stop petro subsidies, and make them eat the cost for the switch if they (the orgs) want to stay alive. We have the evidence; it’s public knowledge now even if not widely disseminated. They’re adding renewables, but not fast enough because there is still profit to be made in petro even though it fucks us further. That has to stop ASAP. Governments are the place where that happens. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26189551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26189551
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - walrus01 6y ago
    > Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? Actually, yes, I would be perfectly happy if the oil industry was not run on full 'free market' capitalist principles, and they acknowledged climate change is real. An article contrasting the Alberta and Norwegian oil industries. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/what-norway-did-with-its-oil-and-we-didnt/article11959362/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/c...
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > What does it matter who believes what if the real things that are actually happening are that they build a lot of renewable energy sources? It matters A LOT. The anti-climate change propaganda is one of the biggest roadblocks to meaningful climate action. In a normal world, the population of the US would have risen up instantly if their president had withdrawn from climate accords or forced the EPA not to talk about global warming. These are lunatic acts, much crazier than the than Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Sure, it's nice that they're planting a few wind farms. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the real changes required if we are to stop global warming from completely dooming our civilization. Building wind-farms would have been a solution if it had started 40 years ago. Today, the only option is to stop most non-renewable plants, and most factories that rely on their power. We need to produce a fraction of the goods we are producing today (not talking about the US specifically, this is a global problem), with all the human costs that will entail. I'm not holding my breath for any of it.
    - onepointsixC 6y ago
      In a normal world, the population of the US would have risen up instantly if their president had signed such a do nothing deal like the climate accords which fails to even get us within spitting distance of dealing with the issue. The solution wasn't building wind farms, it was finishing the nuclear build up like they had originally planed, just like how France did. But that was killed by self proclaimed environmentalists of that era.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        Quite possibly, though there are/were good reasons to be wary of nuclear energy as well. I do personally believe that the risks from global warming outweigh those from nuclear plants at this time, but I don't think this was clear at all 50 years ago.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  A more thoughtful question to ask: If oil and gas companies are so opposed to renewables and have the money to work against them, how did Texas - which is where those companies should have the most control - become the #1 producer of wind power and the #2 producer of solar? What are the possible explanations?
  - aspaceman 6y ago
    Texas is big?
  - brewdad 6y ago
    It's profitable. Both in dollars and cents and in PR value being able to push back against environmentalists and climate change advocates. But you can be assured, global climate be damned, no drop of oil or natural gas will be left in the ground until it becomes unprofitable or unless regulatory changes force the issue.
  - qqqwerty 6y ago
    It is not rocket science. If you are in the business of selling oil and gas, you ideally consume as little of it as possible. Solar and wind are cheaper sources of energy but they aren't easily transported. So Texas is using solar/wind to both cut costs and allow them to export more of their petrochemicals.
  - refurb 6y ago
    The most obvious answer is oil&gas despite its best efforts isn’t all that powerful. I mean, everyone loves the stories of how car companies single handedly ripped up all the street car tracks but apparently they couldn’t stop Tesla from eating their lunch despite teetering on the brink of insolvency for years.
    - SyzygistSix 6y ago
      Throwing one's weight around using capital is a lot easier than innovating.
namdnay 6y ago
Well, they do keep electing climate change deniers, which given the political power of Texas does have a big influence on environmental policy in the US as a whole..

by beaner 6y ago

walrus01 6y ago

It's factually true - unless you believe the phenomenon of climate change denialism itself does not exist. Follow the money. Who funds it? Primarily Houston headquartered oil and gas companies. Or if not headquartered in Houston, with very significant operations in texas and its oil industry. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...

imgabe 6y ago
What are you hoping to prove with this? In terms of what they are actually doing, it sounds like they're installing a lot of renewable energy. Indeed, more than most places. Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? What does it matter who believes what if the real things that are actually happening are that they build a lot of renewable energy sources?
- filoeleven 6y ago
  > Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? Expect them to? No. Wish for it? Yeah, definitely. And then hold them accountable for the decades of gaslighting while they knew that was the case. That’s kind of the role of a government. How is GameStop stock more controversial than climate change denial? GameStop is ephemeral, climate change is existential. The easy thing is to say “bankrupt the fuckers, kill the orgs!” and I feel that. I want to see them suffer for the path they’ve put the whole planet on. The responsible societal thing to do though is probably to mandate renewables, stop petro subsidies, and make them eat the cost for the switch if they (the orgs) want to stay alive. We have the evidence; it’s public knowledge now even if not widely disseminated. They’re adding renewables, but not fast enough because there is still profit to be made in petro even though it fucks us further. That has to stop ASAP. Governments are the place where that happens. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26189551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26189551
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- walrus01 6y ago
  > Do you also expect the Texas government to bust into oil and gas company headquarters and force them to say they believe in global warming? Actually, yes, I would be perfectly happy if the oil industry was not run on full 'free market' capitalist principles, and they acknowledged climate change is real. An article contrasting the Alberta and Norwegian oil industries. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/what-norway-did-with-its-oil-and-we-didnt/article11959362/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/c...
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > What does it matter who believes what if the real things that are actually happening are that they build a lot of renewable energy sources? It matters A LOT. The anti-climate change propaganda is one of the biggest roadblocks to meaningful climate action. In a normal world, the population of the US would have risen up instantly if their president had withdrawn from climate accords or forced the EPA not to talk about global warming. These are lunatic acts, much crazier than the than Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Sure, it's nice that they're planting a few wind farms. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the real changes required if we are to stop global warming from completely dooming our civilization. Building wind-farms would have been a solution if it had started 40 years ago. Today, the only option is to stop most non-renewable plants, and most factories that rely on their power. We need to produce a fraction of the goods we are producing today (not talking about the US specifically, this is a global problem), with all the human costs that will entail. I'm not holding my breath for any of it.
  - onepointsixC 6y ago
    In a normal world, the population of the US would have risen up instantly if their president had signed such a do nothing deal like the climate accords which fails to even get us within spitting distance of dealing with the issue. The solution wasn't building wind farms, it was finishing the nuclear build up like they had originally planed, just like how France did. But that was killed by self proclaimed environmentalists of that era.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Quite possibly, though there are/were good reasons to be wary of nuclear energy as well. I do personally believe that the risks from global warming outweigh those from nuclear plants at this time, but I don't think this was clear at all 50 years ago.
caseysoftware 6y ago
A more thoughtful question to ask: If oil and gas companies are so opposed to renewables and have the money to work against them, how did Texas - which is where those companies should have the most control - become the #1 producer of wind power and the #2 producer of solar? What are the possible explanations?
- aspaceman 6y ago
  Texas is big?
- brewdad 6y ago
  It's profitable. Both in dollars and cents and in PR value being able to push back against environmentalists and climate change advocates. But you can be assured, global climate be damned, no drop of oil or natural gas will be left in the ground until it becomes unprofitable or unless regulatory changes force the issue.
- qqqwerty 6y ago
  It is not rocket science. If you are in the business of selling oil and gas, you ideally consume as little of it as possible. Solar and wind are cheaper sources of energy but they aren't easily transported. So Texas is using solar/wind to both cut costs and allow them to export more of their petrochemicals.
- refurb 6y ago
  The most obvious answer is oil&gas despite its best efforts isn’t all that powerful. I mean, everyone loves the stories of how car companies single handedly ripped up all the street car tracks but apparently they couldn’t stop Tesla from eating their lunch despite teetering on the brink of insolvency for years.
  - SyzygistSix 6y ago
    Throwing one's weight around using capital is a lot easier than innovating.

namdnay 6y ago

Well, they do keep electing climate change deniers, which given the political power of Texas does have a big influence on environmental policy in the US as a whole..