5 ms·

I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this? Instead t

I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this? Instead the public tends to focus on the huge evil corporation who struggles to even keep up with our demand for the very product we are damning them for. There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? I'm not saying Shell has not committed any sins but we will need to do something about the 1.4 Billion cars before anything changes. All of those cars need to be fed. Someone will feed them. [0] https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world-70629 https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-th...

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave? But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x?
- kokanator 5y ago
  > Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? I think arguments like this let the individual again place blame on the manufacturer and not that they are an uneducated consumer ( caveat emptor ). Of course if you purchase a washing machine you must understand it took carbon for the entire production of the machine starting with the excavator that pulled the iron out of the ground to the truck that delivered it. The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy, fix the old one, or don't buy one and go the the coin laundry. But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy ... go the the coin laundry. " Thank you for providing exibit A - blaming the consumer for being uneducated and yet getting it all wrong yourself -> Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average. "But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous." But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game. HN morality at it's finest, when corporations have more rights than people do.
    - kokanator 5y ago
      > Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average. Not if you go to the laundry next to the grocery. Why would you spend more money on fuel when you could combine a trip? > But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game. The consumer is the one that influences the market and has the power to remove or advance politicians. If there is no market to fill the producer will no longer produce. Do you think manufacturing moved to China because the corporations liked China and the logistics or because people would actually buy cheeper products made in China?
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "Why would you spend more money on fuel when you could combine a trip?" Because there is no laundry next to my grocery store? Or Because you have to wait for hours for the laundry to finish, so for some people it's two trips, or because there are queues. There are no carbon savings in using a laundry, and this discourse in carbon accounting illustrates the problem perfectly - it is not possible for a consumer to trace the supply chain used by some megacorp which combines 150 minerals from 50 countries over 6 modes of transport to conclude anything accurate about carbon footprint. You mention politicians, but thats only coming round to politicians and regulation because the market has failed.
kaba0 5y ago
We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either. We should bare the responsibility by paying a premium for any surplus CO2 emitted during the production and transfer of any product we buy. But it will only happen with sane, international laws that take into account the environmental impact of all products. Also, a large populace is easily manipulated and democracy is not that direct for the average person to have a proper say. And “the market will solve it” mentality never ever worked, not even thought to work by Adam Smith generally — only in very regulated markets.
- kokanator 5y ago
  >We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either. Of course you are perpetuators. Where did your computer come from? For most it came from the largest polluter on the planet by nearly double.[0] Most likely your shoes came from there as well. The point is the consumer is buying the stuff that basically outsources the pollution. Creating strong environmental regulation locally but allowing products from polluting countries just displaces the problem ( and jobs btw ). Tariffs solve this, quickly. I think this is where your democracy comment comes in. The mob doesn't want to pay more so they fight this type of legislation or executive order and thus are perpetuators of the problem. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...
epistasis 5y ago
> There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? Shell is at fault for providing a product that causes harms and not rectifying that harm. Cars? Who cares, that's not what Shell sells. I would love to shift some liability to city planners that have made so much of the population dependent on cars, and some liability to car manufacturers, and maybe even to the advocates that make it nearly impossible to build homes and workplaces that don't depend on cars. But the legal ground is much shakier. And it's even possible to build cars that don't depend on carbon emissions, much of the liability that I would like to see shifted to car manufacturers is because they have actively foiled attempts to move off emitting power sources. But I wouldn't want to invest in a new ICE in this day and age. It's likely that it will be off the road long before its lifetime is over. Natural fleet turnover for our vehicles is not quick enough to solve the problem. And if somebody else is going to "feed" our cars, they will be just as liable for the damage they cause. A lot of people are going to have a HARD awakening in the coming decade. They have been believing the bullshit from fossil fuel companies, BS that even the fossil fuel companies didn't believe, but spread to eke out just another few years of profits before having to change their strategy. And the companies that refuse to disrupt themselves are the ones who will be forcefully disrupted. This moment in time is like when the iPhone was released and Blackberry had no idea what was coming. Renewables are cheaper than natural gas right now, and by the time we need massive amounts of storage, renewables plus lithium ion batteries will be cheaper than combined cycle gas turbines. Every new natural gas asset will be stranded within the next decade, as new renewables+storage will be cheaper than the opex for continuing to burn gas.
- kokanator 5y ago
  > Cars? Who cares, that's not what Shell sells. The only reason Shell truly exists is because all of those gas tanks. >And it's even possible to build cars that don't depend on carbon emissions, Sure, really only in the past 5-8 years. ( what about those Tesla stations ran by diesel generators? ) >Renewables are cheaper than natural gas right now, and by the time we need massive amounts of storage, renewables plus lithium ion batteries will be cheaper than combined cycle gas turbines. Every time, I mean every time this threshold is crossed the cost of fossil fuels plummets way below the threshold. 1.4 billion cars are on the road a little over 1 million are electric in any way. I don't see how this is the gas companies fault. They have provided a product to 1.4 billion gas tanks ( a lot of those weekly ) on a consistently reliable basis. If there is ever a threat of a shortage people start lining up for miles to buy the product Shell is 'forcing' them to buy? Perhaps we need to hold the gas tank companies responsible for making a product that holds fuel. This is a culture and economy problem not the fault of a fuel company. Our entire economy is dependent on fossil fuel. PS. It would be nice if you provided at least on reference for the last two paragraphs of your post. Way too many claims with no resources.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave? But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x?

kokanator 5y ago
> Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? I think arguments like this let the individual again place blame on the manufacturer and not that they are an uneducated consumer ( caveat emptor ). Of course if you purchase a washing machine you must understand it took carbon for the entire production of the machine starting with the excavator that pulled the iron out of the ground to the truck that delivered it. The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy, fix the old one, or don't buy one and go the the coin laundry. But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy ... go the the coin laundry. " Thank you for providing exibit A - blaming the consumer for being uneducated and yet getting it all wrong yourself -> Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average. "But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous." But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game. HN morality at it's finest, when corporations have more rights than people do.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    > Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average. Not if you go to the laundry next to the grocery. Why would you spend more money on fuel when you could combine a trip? > But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game. The consumer is the one that influences the market and has the power to remove or advance politicians. If there is no market to fill the producer will no longer produce. Do you think manufacturing moved to China because the corporations liked China and the logistics or because people would actually buy cheeper products made in China?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "Why would you spend more money on fuel when you could combine a trip?" Because there is no laundry next to my grocery store? Or Because you have to wait for hours for the laundry to finish, so for some people it's two trips, or because there are queues. There are no carbon savings in using a laundry, and this discourse in carbon accounting illustrates the problem perfectly - it is not possible for a consumer to trace the supply chain used by some megacorp which combines 150 minerals from 50 countries over 6 modes of transport to conclude anything accurate about carbon footprint. You mention politicians, but thats only coming round to politicians and regulation because the market has failed.

kaba0 5y ago

We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either. We should bare the responsibility by paying a premium for any surplus CO2 emitted during the production and transfer of any product we buy. But it will only happen with sane, international laws that take into account the environmental impact of all products. Also, a large populace is easily manipulated and democracy is not that direct for the average person to have a proper say. And “the market will solve it” mentality never ever worked, not even thought to work by Adam Smith generally — only in very regulated markets.

kokanator 5y ago
>We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either. Of course you are perpetuators. Where did your computer come from? For most it came from the largest polluter on the planet by nearly double.[0] Most likely your shoes came from there as well. The point is the consumer is buying the stuff that basically outsources the pollution. Creating strong environmental regulation locally but allowing products from polluting countries just displaces the problem ( and jobs btw ). Tariffs solve this, quickly. I think this is where your democracy comment comes in. The mob doesn't want to pay more so they fight this type of legislation or executive order and thus are perpetuators of the problem. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...

epistasis 5y ago

> There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? Shell is at fault for providing a product that causes harms and not rectifying that harm. Cars? Who cares, that's not what Shell sells. I would love to shift some liability to city planners that have made so much of the population dependent on cars, and some liability to car manufacturers, and maybe even to the advocates that make it nearly impossible to build homes and workplaces that don't depend on cars. But the legal ground is much shakier. And it's even possible to build cars that don't depend on carbon emissions, much of the liability that I would like to see shifted to car manufacturers is because they have actively foiled attempts to move off emitting power sources. But I wouldn't want to invest in a new ICE in this day and age. It's likely that it will be off the road long before its lifetime is over. Natural fleet turnover for our vehicles is not quick enough to solve the problem. And if somebody else is going to "feed" our cars, they will be just as liable for the damage they cause. A lot of people are going to have a HARD awakening in the coming decade. They have been believing the bullshit from fossil fuel companies, BS that even the fossil fuel companies didn't believe, but spread to eke out just another few years of profits before having to change their strategy. And the companies that refuse to disrupt themselves are the ones who will be forcefully disrupted. This moment in time is like when the iPhone was released and Blackberry had no idea what was coming. Renewables are cheaper than natural gas right now, and by the time we need massive amounts of storage, renewables plus lithium ion batteries will be cheaper than combined cycle gas turbines. Every new natural gas asset will be stranded within the next decade, as new renewables+storage will be cheaper than the opex for continuing to burn gas.

kokanator 5y ago
> Cars? Who cares, that's not what Shell sells. The only reason Shell truly exists is because all of those gas tanks. >And it's even possible to build cars that don't depend on carbon emissions, Sure, really only in the past 5-8 years. ( what about those Tesla stations ran by diesel generators? ) >Renewables are cheaper than natural gas right now, and by the time we need massive amounts of storage, renewables plus lithium ion batteries will be cheaper than combined cycle gas turbines. Every time, I mean every time this threshold is crossed the cost of fossil fuels plummets way below the threshold. 1.4 billion cars are on the road a little over 1 million are electric in any way. I don't see how this is the gas companies fault. They have provided a product to 1.4 billion gas tanks ( a lot of those weekly ) on a consistently reliable basis. If there is ever a threat of a shortage people start lining up for miles to buy the product Shell is 'forcing' them to buy? Perhaps we need to hold the gas tank companies responsible for making a product that holds fuel. This is a culture and economy problem not the fault of a fuel company. Our entire economy is dependent on fossil fuel. PS. It would be nice if you provided at least on reference for the last two paragraphs of your post. Way too many claims with no resources.