4 ms·

You really think them being honest would change anyone’s usage of fossil fuels? Hell, oil companies are transparent about climate change now, and usage is still

You really think them being honest would change anyone’s usage of fossil fuels? Hell, oil companies are transparent about climate change now, and usage is still going up YOY. Only now that we are experiencing greater effects of climate change, everyone is jumping on half-solutions like electric cars - let’s not even get started on the ecological footprint of batteries.

epistasis 5y ago
So you think the O&G went on a massive, expensive, coordinated disinformation for fun, and without the intention of increasing fossil fuel usage? Why would executives put themselves at risk for nothing? Why would they spend so much money for nothing? Why lie if the lie doesn't benefit them? The truth is that these disinformation campaigns to this day are killing our transition away from fossil fuels. They have spawned a political movement that is far more extreme than the publicly stated opinions of the fossil fuel companies. One prime example of this disinformation campaign is repeated by you: > let's not even get started on the ecological footprint of batteries. This myth that batteries are somehow worse than fuel is exactly the type of disinformation that fossil fuel companies manufacture and that others spread, seemingly willingly, because of their tribal politics motivations. You don't know the footprint of batteries for electrical cars. It's certainly no worse than what we use to make the rest of a car. I've spent hours combing the web for concrete ecological impacts. The only concrete thing anybody talks about are not ecological, but social. Indigenous people in South America not getting compensated for their land. Cobalt mining from artisanal, unaccounted mines using child labor. But the ecological footprint is a tiny shadow of all the steel, copper, etc. that goes into al the rest of society.
- likecarter 5y ago
  > You don't know the footprint of batteries for electrical cars. It's certainly no worse than what we use to make the rest of a car. Have you heard of open-pit mines? I would call the ecological damage of that much higher than a comparable oil drilling site. I have nothing against electric vehicles, or progress away from CO2 emitters. But EVs are a half-backed solution. And EVs might even be net-negative for climate change. What do you think mining equipment runs on? A shit-ton of diesel. The largest cost of a gold mine is energy - diesel. I just think the mental gymnastics people use to justify the smaller ecological impact EVs is ridiculous. Heck, I even own a Tesla.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    I've heard of open pit mines, but they are generally used for existing technology that lithium will replace, for example coal. Lithium tends to be mined with brines. You have a huge bias against EVs, you call them a "half-baked solution" without any qualifications. This is a very subjective judgement that is contradicted by the large number of EVs that are replacing every day usage for people, for commuting and road trips and every aspect of life that requires a vehicle. It's beyond ridiculous to claim that EVs be a net negative for climate change. Even the fossil fuel PR machine isn't so bold to make such ridiculous counterfactua claims. At least the people paid to lie for fossil fuel companies say that it takes until many tens of thousand is miles until an EV makes up is carbon impact, but even that is a bald-faces lie. So I'm short, you are manufacturing ridiculous claims, without any substance, that force people to deal with extra BS and counter your lies in the public sphere. Your comments here are a drain on the discussion, fact free accusations without any merit that you are using to naysay EVs and simultaneously out of the other side of your mouth say that you have nothing against them and even own one. This is classic FUD from the old days. If you are not paid for your efforts, you are underselling yourself. Spreading such misinformation earns many people a paycheck.
    - likecarter 5y ago
      You attack me for not providing statistics when your crux is “People buying EV cars must mean they’re good”. Yeah, people buying Gamestop must mean it’s good too. Clown. It’s widely known the environmental impact of EVs. If you want to make a real difference, look elsewhere.
      - epistasis 5y ago
        I attack you for not providing statistics, and merely fabricating FUD. If I am mistaken, please point out the statistic, or any concrete real world damage that is worse than the alternative.
burkaman 5y ago
Why did they put so much effort into lying if it didn't matter?

epistasis 5y ago

So you think the O&G went on a massive, expensive, coordinated disinformation for fun, and without the intention of increasing fossil fuel usage? Why would executives put themselves at risk for nothing? Why would they spend so much money for nothing? Why lie if the lie doesn't benefit them? The truth is that these disinformation campaigns to this day are killing our transition away from fossil fuels. They have spawned a political movement that is far more extreme than the publicly stated opinions of the fossil fuel companies. One prime example of this disinformation campaign is repeated by you: > let's not even get started on the ecological footprint of batteries. This myth that batteries are somehow worse than fuel is exactly the type of disinformation that fossil fuel companies manufacture and that others spread, seemingly willingly, because of their tribal politics motivations. You don't know the footprint of batteries for electrical cars. It's certainly no worse than what we use to make the rest of a car. I've spent hours combing the web for concrete ecological impacts. The only concrete thing anybody talks about are not ecological, but social. Indigenous people in South America not getting compensated for their land. Cobalt mining from artisanal, unaccounted mines using child labor. But the ecological footprint is a tiny shadow of all the steel, copper, etc. that goes into al the rest of society.

likecarter 5y ago
> You don't know the footprint of batteries for electrical cars. It's certainly no worse than what we use to make the rest of a car. Have you heard of open-pit mines? I would call the ecological damage of that much higher than a comparable oil drilling site. I have nothing against electric vehicles, or progress away from CO2 emitters. But EVs are a half-backed solution. And EVs might even be net-negative for climate change. What do you think mining equipment runs on? A shit-ton of diesel. The largest cost of a gold mine is energy - diesel. I just think the mental gymnastics people use to justify the smaller ecological impact EVs is ridiculous. Heck, I even own a Tesla.
- epistasis 5y ago
  I've heard of open pit mines, but they are generally used for existing technology that lithium will replace, for example coal. Lithium tends to be mined with brines. You have a huge bias against EVs, you call them a "half-baked solution" without any qualifications. This is a very subjective judgement that is contradicted by the large number of EVs that are replacing every day usage for people, for commuting and road trips and every aspect of life that requires a vehicle. It's beyond ridiculous to claim that EVs be a net negative for climate change. Even the fossil fuel PR machine isn't so bold to make such ridiculous counterfactua claims. At least the people paid to lie for fossil fuel companies say that it takes until many tens of thousand is miles until an EV makes up is carbon impact, but even that is a bald-faces lie. So I'm short, you are manufacturing ridiculous claims, without any substance, that force people to deal with extra BS and counter your lies in the public sphere. Your comments here are a drain on the discussion, fact free accusations without any merit that you are using to naysay EVs and simultaneously out of the other side of your mouth say that you have nothing against them and even own one. This is classic FUD from the old days. If you are not paid for your efforts, you are underselling yourself. Spreading such misinformation earns many people a paycheck.
  - likecarter 5y ago
    You attack me for not providing statistics when your crux is “People buying EV cars must mean they’re good”. Yeah, people buying Gamestop must mean it’s good too. Clown. It’s widely known the environmental impact of EVs. If you want to make a real difference, look elsewhere.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      I attack you for not providing statistics, and merely fabricating FUD. If I am mistaken, please point out the statistic, or any concrete real world damage that is worse than the alternative.

burkaman 5y ago

Why did they put so much effort into lying if it didn't matter?