7 ms·

I can't fathom how anybody still advocates for this industry unless they're getting filthy rich off it. For example I always see overlap in climate change denia

by warent 5y ago

I can't fathom how anybody still advocates for this industry unless they're getting filthy rich off it. For example I always see overlap in climate change denial and advocacy for these fuel industries. Like, okay fine, deny climate change science, but how can you still argue that this crap is fine for the environment? You want polluted waters, polluted air, polluted everything? I'll probably be flagged for this post as it contributes nothing, it's just an emotional outburst, but sometimes man I just feel hopeless, helpless, and have no idea what to do when humans are just short-sighted apes.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
This industry provides absolutely necessary resources and millions of jobs. I think spills and scandals are bad but every industry has them, including electricity generation by nuclear power or other means. PGE's wildfire causing lines are also destroying the environment. We have a huge dependency on oil. One day in the distant future we may wean ourselves off of it. But it's not at all a possibility today or in the next 5 years or in the next 10 years.
gruez 5y ago
>I can't fathom how anybody still advocates for this industry unless they're getting filthy rich off it [...] but how can you still argue that this crap is fine for the environment? You want polluted waters, polluted air, polluted everything? Because even though most people are against "polluted waters, polluted air, polluted everything", it's only in the abstract. They care about cheap transport (and associated goods) more. See: the yellow vest protests, the failed carbon tax in switzerland, or the US opposition to gas taxes even from democrats[1]. [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/559063-democrats-have-turned-solidly-against-gas-tax https://thehill.com/homenews/house/559063-democrats-have-tur...
- dnautics 5y ago
  It it possible that your cherry picked examples of failed regulations are genuinely bad laws for reasons besides the intention? Even the US got NOX and SOX emissions under control, and pretty rapidly too, so it's hard to imagine that environmental regulation is politically impossible writ large.... Note that the NOX and SOX auction system is very simple and there isn't a carbon reduction scene proposed today that is free of all sorts of insane riders and generally bad exemptions, credits, and subsidies, the concept of government setting the price of carbon (which is unpalatable to Americans) aside.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
This industry powers our cars, paves our roads and provides us with plastic, probably the greatest material ever invented. All of us are "rich" from the oil industry.
- dkural 5y ago
  This industry gives us cancer, contaminates our food, gives our children asthma, and is creating an uninhabitable Earth with catastrophic climate change. But enjoy your coca cola while you wait in a traffic jam on the highway.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I think an important point here is that as much as the industry is a problem, especially since it lobbies in its own interests, it is a problem we have helped to create and perpetuate with our lifestyle demands.
    - dkural 5y ago
      Agreed! It's a coordination problem across the entire society. Government hasn't done a good job pricing in all the terrible externalities I listed above, so it needs to reflect the full costs with an honest price signal to change collective incentives for all of us.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    We live longer and healthier now. That's in part made possible through extensive use of crude oil.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Out_of_Characte 5y ago
I think its important to understand that there are very few 'climate deniers' alot of opposition comes from people who refuse to give a blanc cheque to take extreme measures to stop any form of enviromental damage or Co2 emission. From an economic standpoint we've benefitted so much on these early versions of power harvesting that taking drastic measures would destroy economies, The people who would be hurt most by a economic downturn are people who do not have enough resources to support their daily needs. That's why politicians want a clear, concise solution that still allows the economy to grow. William D. Nordhaus won the nobel price for analysing different scenario's to see what the optimal balance is between the economy and policy change. You can't throw money at the problem if there is none. every person I've met has been of outstanding moral character and somewhat decent understanding of the problem, therefore I think the reluctance of extreme measures can be seen as the wisdom of a crowd. No one wants to step too hard on eachother's toes for a good reason. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/lecture/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nor...
- consumer451 5y ago
  Could you please provide specific policy examples that would illustrate drastic vs non-drastic measures? I think it would help me understand your point more fully.
  - Out_of_Characte 5y ago
    The most tone deaf promise/policy is to be completely carbon neutral by year x. It really doesn't seem likely we'll be turning off the last fossil fuel power plant any time soon. and no amount of carbon tax is suddenly going to make the production of steel or fertilizer carbon neutral. even research can only reduce, not eliminate alot of key components in order to have a functioning society. I also think alot of developed countries are already doing their best to produce better sustainable alternatives for key area's like double glass windows or capturing more green energy. Its the developing world that still increases their fossil fuels and has little money for longterm development. Even more problematic, I think, by proxy of high energy prices, companies and products that hurt the enviroment the most have fled to countries with the least restrictions. trying to reel that in to more developed countries is on the same complexity level as eliminating tax evasion schemes. And I dont see many on HN believing that's simple to do.
gojomo 5y ago
It's not hyperbolically "fine", but unless you're living a rustic nearly off-the-grid life, you're regularly enjoying modern goods dependent on the fossil fuels industry for transport, fertilization, packaging, plastics, energy – from essentials like food up through luxuries. Perhaps you try to minimize your consumption of obviously fossil-fuel dependent products. Still, most complex highest-value products – like everything computer- or medical- or entertainment- related – only became possible with the massive surpluses-over-subsistence, & advanced fields-of-practice, that fossil-fuels enabled. Humans are getting smart enough to now massively decrease the energy intensity of many high-value activities, or leverage energy sources with fewer (but not zero) unintentional or unmetered negative spillovers. But it took the lucky bonanza of fossil fuels to get humanity to here. (I suspect it even took that bonanza to train up enough minds for you to be aware, & angry, about an oil-spill that's (likely) thousands of miles away from you – instead of totally focused on a short life as a subsistence farmer.)
- warent 5y ago
  Humans have lived for millennia with a slower rate of tech advancement, yet here you're saying that the planet had to be sacrificed out of necessity. That's like arguing that it's necessary to sacrifice the brain on cocaine and amphetamines for a boost in productivity. The brain is life, the planet is life. These things cannot be sacrificed for some greater good because they are all there is. We've been aware of renewable energy for a very long time now. The concept of a fully-functional solar powered refrigerator first appeared in 1935. Can you imagine where we would be if we spent the last 100 years on clean, renewable energy? Maybe not 2020 levels of technology, but still damn far, and with a healthy planet.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Humans have lived for millennia with a slower rate of tech advancement, yet here you're saying that the planet had to be sacrificed out of necessity. [...] They also had life expectancy at birth of 30, and regular famines. I'm sure you'd change your tune after your wife died with your child in childbirth.
corobo 5y ago
Greedophiles simply do not care. If it's not the path to more money, ignore
munificent 5y ago
You would get a lot from reading "Strangers in Their Own Land". A sociologist goes to southern Louisiana to talk to people to try to learn why the group of people who is often most directly impacted by pollution is also so often vocally anti-regulation. I grew up the area, in a place literally referred to as "Cancer Alley", and it's a fascinating mixture of culture, cognitive dissonance, power structures, and limited economic opportunities. The short answer is that everyone, everyone makes their life choices in the context of a larger culture that they absorb mostly automatically and unconsciously. We like to consider ourselves autonomous actors that make our own choices, but our culture defines the set of choices that are even thinkable, and provides the heuristics we use to rank those choices. Culture changes slowly, irrationally, and preferentially to the benefit of those in power. The result is that our habits for making decisions are often out of sync with what's materially best for us. On top of that, we are a tribal primate species. We're hardwired to feel a deep emotional need to be included by and valued by our social group. For almost all of our evolutionary history, abandonment meant death. So we feel an innate pressure to conform to the beliefs of those around us. Mix that all together, and it's fairly easy to end up with people acting against their self interest or making unthought choices that go against their values.

by warent 5y ago

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

This industry provides absolutely necessary resources and millions of jobs. I think spills and scandals are bad but every industry has them, including electricity generation by nuclear power or other means. PGE's wildfire causing lines are also destroying the environment. We have a huge dependency on oil. One day in the distant future we may wean ourselves off of it. But it's not at all a possibility today or in the next 5 years or in the next 10 years.

gruez 5y ago

>I can't fathom how anybody still advocates for this industry unless they're getting filthy rich off it [...] but how can you still argue that this crap is fine for the environment? You want polluted waters, polluted air, polluted everything? Because even though most people are against "polluted waters, polluted air, polluted everything", it's only in the abstract. They care about cheap transport (and associated goods) more. See: the yellow vest protests, the failed carbon tax in switzerland, or the US opposition to gas taxes even from democrats[1]. [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/559063-democrats-have-turned-solidly-against-gas-tax https://thehill.com/homenews/house/559063-democrats-have-tur...

dnautics 5y ago
It it possible that your cherry picked examples of failed regulations are genuinely bad laws for reasons besides the intention? Even the US got NOX and SOX emissions under control, and pretty rapidly too, so it's hard to imagine that environmental regulation is politically impossible writ large.... Note that the NOX and SOX auction system is very simple and there isn't a carbon reduction scene proposed today that is free of all sorts of insane riders and generally bad exemptions, credits, and subsidies, the concept of government setting the price of carbon (which is unpalatable to Americans) aside.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

This industry powers our cars, paves our roads and provides us with plastic, probably the greatest material ever invented. All of us are "rich" from the oil industry.

dkural 5y ago
This industry gives us cancer, contaminates our food, gives our children asthma, and is creating an uninhabitable Earth with catastrophic climate change. But enjoy your coca cola while you wait in a traffic jam on the highway.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I think an important point here is that as much as the industry is a problem, especially since it lobbies in its own interests, it is a problem we have helped to create and perpetuate with our lifestyle demands.
  - dkural 5y ago
    Agreed! It's a coordination problem across the entire society. Government hasn't done a good job pricing in all the terrible externalities I listed above, so it needs to reflect the full costs with an honest price signal to change collective incentives for all of us.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  We live longer and healthier now. That's in part made possible through extensive use of crude oil.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Out_of_Characte 5y ago

I think its important to understand that there are very few 'climate deniers' alot of opposition comes from people who refuse to give a blanc cheque to take extreme measures to stop any form of enviromental damage or Co2 emission. From an economic standpoint we've benefitted so much on these early versions of power harvesting that taking drastic measures would destroy economies, The people who would be hurt most by a economic downturn are people who do not have enough resources to support their daily needs. That's why politicians want a clear, concise solution that still allows the economy to grow. William D. Nordhaus won the nobel price for analysing different scenario's to see what the optimal balance is between the economy and policy change. You can't throw money at the problem if there is none. every person I've met has been of outstanding moral character and somewhat decent understanding of the problem, therefore I think the reluctance of extreme measures can be seen as the wisdom of a crowd. No one wants to step too hard on eachother's toes for a good reason. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/lecture/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nor...

consumer451 5y ago
Could you please provide specific policy examples that would illustrate drastic vs non-drastic measures? I think it would help me understand your point more fully.
- Out_of_Characte 5y ago
  The most tone deaf promise/policy is to be completely carbon neutral by year x. It really doesn't seem likely we'll be turning off the last fossil fuel power plant any time soon. and no amount of carbon tax is suddenly going to make the production of steel or fertilizer carbon neutral. even research can only reduce, not eliminate alot of key components in order to have a functioning society. I also think alot of developed countries are already doing their best to produce better sustainable alternatives for key area's like double glass windows or capturing more green energy. Its the developing world that still increases their fossil fuels and has little money for longterm development. Even more problematic, I think, by proxy of high energy prices, companies and products that hurt the enviroment the most have fled to countries with the least restrictions. trying to reel that in to more developed countries is on the same complexity level as eliminating tax evasion schemes. And I dont see many on HN believing that's simple to do.

gojomo 5y ago

It's not hyperbolically "fine", but unless you're living a rustic nearly off-the-grid life, you're regularly enjoying modern goods dependent on the fossil fuels industry for transport, fertilization, packaging, plastics, energy – from essentials like food up through luxuries. Perhaps you try to minimize your consumption of obviously fossil-fuel dependent products. Still, most complex highest-value products – like everything computer- or medical- or entertainment- related – only became possible with the massive surpluses-over-subsistence, & advanced fields-of-practice, that fossil-fuels enabled. Humans are getting smart enough to now massively decrease the energy intensity of many high-value activities, or leverage energy sources with fewer (but not zero) unintentional or unmetered negative spillovers. But it took the lucky bonanza of fossil fuels to get humanity to here. (I suspect it even took that bonanza to train up enough minds for you to be aware, & angry, about an oil-spill that's (likely) thousands of miles away from you – instead of totally focused on a short life as a subsistence farmer.)

warent 5y ago
Humans have lived for millennia with a slower rate of tech advancement, yet here you're saying that the planet had to be sacrificed out of necessity. That's like arguing that it's necessary to sacrifice the brain on cocaine and amphetamines for a boost in productivity. The brain is life, the planet is life. These things cannot be sacrificed for some greater good because they are all there is. We've been aware of renewable energy for a very long time now. The concept of a fully-functional solar powered refrigerator first appeared in 1935. Can you imagine where we would be if we spent the last 100 years on clean, renewable energy? Maybe not 2020 levels of technology, but still damn far, and with a healthy planet.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Humans have lived for millennia with a slower rate of tech advancement, yet here you're saying that the planet had to be sacrificed out of necessity. [...] They also had life expectancy at birth of 30, and regular famines. I'm sure you'd change your tune after your wife died with your child in childbirth.

corobo 5y ago

Greedophiles simply do not care. If it's not the path to more money, ignore

munificent 5y ago

You would get a lot from reading "Strangers in Their Own Land". A sociologist goes to southern Louisiana to talk to people to try to learn why the group of people who is often most directly impacted by pollution is also so often vocally anti-regulation. I grew up the area, in a place literally referred to as "Cancer Alley", and it's a fascinating mixture of culture, cognitive dissonance, power structures, and limited economic opportunities. The short answer is that everyone, everyone makes their life choices in the context of a larger culture that they absorb mostly automatically and unconsciously. We like to consider ourselves autonomous actors that make our own choices, but our culture defines the set of choices that are even thinkable, and provides the heuristics we use to rank those choices. Culture changes slowly, irrationally, and preferentially to the benefit of those in power. The result is that our habits for making decisions are often out of sync with what's materially best for us. On top of that, we are a tribal primate species. We're hardwired to feel a deep emotional need to be included by and valued by our social group. For almost all of our evolutionary history, abandonment meant death. So we feel an innate pressure to conform to the beliefs of those around us. Mix that all together, and it's fairly easy to end up with people acting against their self interest or making unthought choices that go against their values.