9 ms·

People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. No po

People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. No point or even value in demonizing these companies — the whole world is complicit.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. No, they’re not. > We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it.
- relax88 5y ago
  They are doing both. Cigarettes are a luxury item. Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. You could fire all of the corporate PR propagandists and lobbyists on the planet and I doubt it would make a dramatic dent in oil consumption. Couldn’t possibly hurt though!
  - mindslight 5y ago
    If you want to frame this in terms of the demand side, then downsizing all of the PR propagandists would be a great start, along with all the other zero sum jobs. Instead of efficiency gains causing people to work less and consume less resources for the same output, central banks insist on "full employment" stimulus that creates make-work jobs to compensate. And despite their utility being zero-sum, these workers are churning hard in the rat race - buying new cars, fancy clothes, big houses, and other wasteful spending as they're time strapped. If instead of churning these people were allowed to just retire, they would use much less resources. But it seems like we can't insist on financial reform to slow down the economy, because every crisis becomes an excuse for the central banks to pump the gas while scaring people with the deflation bogeyman. And so we're stuck focusing on direct intervention to prevent the ever growing throng of antiproductive labor from doing as much damage.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I’ve never heard a complete argument as to how central bank policy makes people want new cars, fancy clothes, or big houses (or tropical and ski vacations)… I think people want those luxuries and (many) are willing to work for them entirely independent of central bank policy.
      - dnautics 5y ago
        Isn't it basic that if there's no point to saving and investing is a rigged casino, you might as well spend it on something fun? Consume consume consume! It's good for the economy (if you don't grow exponentially at any environmental cost then you can't keep up with inflation and our economy collapses)
        luckylion 5y ago
        > Isn't it basic that if there's no point to saving and investing is a rigged casino, you might as well spend it on something fun? I don't think it works that way. I know a few people who are very financially conservative, and I am as well. None of them have responded to interest rates of 0% by consuming more. Everyone has shifted their accepted risk a little bit, but that's about it, they're still putting aside money. On the other hand, the people I know that are spending every available coin for vacation and consumption already did so 20 years ago.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Have you, or someone you know, ever alternated between having a high-compensation low-free-time (eg high paid tech job), and low/no-compensation high-free-time (ie funemployment) ? They're two completely different operating modes. In the first mode, every minute of time is valuable so you pay more for convenience (eg restaurant food, same-day shipping), and when you're not working you're willing to spend a lot of money to "relax harder". You also tend to buy new gadgets for the dopamine release and hope of doing something with them, and then never quite get around to actually using them. In the second mode, you're willing to spend more time to get routine things done, engage in hobbies that take patience, cook your own meals, and generally try to keep your burn rate lower. The financial treadmill pushes people towards the first mode, as one's burn rate always includes housing rent that demands a significant base level of income.
  - thinkcontext 5y ago
    > You could fire all of the corporate PR propagandists and lobbyists on the planet and I doubt it would make a dramatic dent in oil consumption. There's a good chance we could have had a carbon price or other real measures 10 or more years ago without the malignant denialism seed planted by their propagandists.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    > Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread. Right now we are going through a technological revolution in humanity, maybe on the level of the development of agriculture, in how we generate energy. Renewables and storage are often cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment, and they are getting cheaper just like Moore's law describes the densification of transistors on chips. HN is full of technologists. We, of all people, should recognize the capacity for technology change. And that technology change is actual work, that needs actual funding and labor, in order to happen. We do not need fossil fuels for modern life, if we develop the technology. Dedicated technologists and entrepreneurs over the past 50 years have made solar power the cheapest energy out there, despite massive political power and the all the money of fossil fuel companies fighting against them. If we had prioritized solar and storage, could we have accelerated the tech's development by 10 years? 20 years? We don't have every single aspect of technology for decarbonization solved yet. Aviation fuel, for example. But that doesn't mean we can't, it just means that we haven't tried hard enough.
    - relax88 5y ago
      When I say petroleum products are a requirement for modern life, what I mean is that more than 80% of the energy driving modern society comes from fossil fuels. It probably doesn’t have to be that way, but it is. You definitely can’t say that for cigarettes. I think that you raise a valid point, but also that you’re far too optimistic about renewables. The people of HN are indeed very tech focused, and I believe that such optimism about energy transformation with renewables may be more difficult to foster if this forum were called “Engineering and physics news” simply because technologists tend to suffer from the “Law of the hammer” problem. There are very real engineering challenges with renewables that may very well preclude the kind of dramatic progress you’re referring to. Solar and Wind for example require huge amounts of land, and have a fairly high materials throughput as their lifespan is typically only 15-20 years. All of that effort is spent gathering a diffuse source of energy. There are very real physical limits to how much energy you can gather per square foot, per kg of silica, concrete, or steel. I think your sentiment is correct about nuclear though, which makes me wonder how much big oil has been funding groups like the Sierra Club et al. who have spent nearly half a decade campaigning against nuclear energy.
- refurb 5y ago
  Nope. Consumers knew burning gasoline and diesel created pollution 60 years ago. They could have push for clean alternatives but didnt. Don’t give them a pass.
  - isoskeles 5y ago
    A pass on what? Are we going to punish them?
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Some did. The green parties go a long way back.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    So did the oil companies, and they still continued lobbying against environmental regulations and in favor of fossil fuels. So why are you giving them a pass?
    - refurb 5y ago
      I’m not. Why are you giving consumers a pass?
- coryrc 5y ago
  Is Big Oil why we can't have affordable, safe, quiet housing in dense cities? Is Big Oil why people like taking planes to Hawaii? Is Big Oil why it's much cheaper to heat with natural gas?
  - drdeca 5y ago
    I can’t say definitively for the first one, but for the second one, obviously not. However, lies are bad. Presumably they had a motivation to tell such lies, yes? Presumably they believed that telling such lies were to their benefit? Presumably the mechanism by which they believed telling such lies would be to their benefit would be by influencing the actions of others? Surely you don’t think the reason for the lies is just that they would feel socially awkward if they had been honest? Presumably they perceived a risk that if they hadn’t lied, that some regulations would have been imposed. These regulations could have restricted emissions by reducing consumption. Yes, this would mean that consumers would lose something they wanted. This does not justify lies.
    - coryrc 5y ago
      > this would mean that consumers would lose something they wanted. When was the last time politicians voted for something >55% of their voters didn't want? LBJ and the Civil Rights Act? How did that turn out? Number 1 shared American value is mass consumerism.
      - drdeca 5y ago
        I didn’t say they people would be against the regulation. I said they would lose something they wanted, which is something people do basically whenever they spend money (they lose money, which is something they want, in exchange for goods or services that they want more).
  - coryrc 5y ago
    To answer my questions: 1 Not to my knowledge; housing policy reflects the desire for segregation. 2 No, Hawaii is nice. 3 No, it's physics. Until very recently even a heat pump would burn more hydrocarbons using the grid than direct heating and cost a lot more.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > > People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. > No, they’re not. That would be more convincing if you gave a reason why you say "no, they're not". Even better would be evidence.
  - rangerelf 5y ago
    > > > People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. > > No, they’re not. > That would be more convincing if you gave a reason why you say "no, they're not". Even better would be evidence. He did give his reasoning, you just chose not to quote it: > > Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it. And his reasoning was based on propaganda, if oil companies are just passive actors responding to demand, what's the need for such vicious amounts of lobbying and propaganda? My guess is that they're creating the need, and making sure that information and products that go against that propaganda don't become widespread.
  - bwha 5y ago
    Sigh. I mean are people really this unaware of the decades long efforts by oil companies to cover up the truth of what was going on? I'll act in good faith and believe they are. One quick summary by the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 Choice quotes from above: "... I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind. They (the oil execs) were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups..." An in depth look in podcast format. https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ Season Summaries: Season 1: The Origins of Climate Denial traced the corporate-funded creation and spread of climate denial, including interviews with former Exxon scientists, primary source documents, and an in-depth look at the history of fossil fuel-funded influence campaigns. Season 2: Hot Water follows a group of West Coast crab fisherman who are experiencing first-hand the devastating impacts of climate change. And this unlikely group of climate activists just became the first industry to sue big oil. Season 3: The Mad Men of Climate Denial digs into the history of fossil fuel propaganda and the few “Mad Men of climate denial” who shaped it. Season 4: There Will Be Fraud follows the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to use the COVID-19 pandemic to push through its wishlist of deregulation and subsidies. Season 5: La Lucha En La Jungla looks at the decades-long battle between indigenous groups in the Ecuadorian Amazon and Chevron. Season 6: The Bridge to Nowhere: A season in three parts about the past, present, and future of the natural gas industry.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  > Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it. These really aren't very similar. Big Tobacco's lies were the only thing propping up the tobacco industry. As soon as the truth became clear, their industry was absolutely crushed. The truth about climate change has been clear for decades, but unlike the situation with tobacco, the demand for Oil & Gas keeps on growing[0]. This is because, unlike tobacco, Oil & Gas is absolutely indispensable--especially for developing countries. Lying about climate change was a terrible thing, and it cost us precious time. But we still need them to keep the lights on, and pretending that the act of producing Oil & Gas today--when it is literally a hard requirement to keep the lights on around the world-- is somehow pernicious, is just silliness. The world is stressful enough without all the outrage theatre. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ggggtez 5y ago
    Arguably the only thing propping up the oil industry is lies as well... If it wasn't for the big lie that Climate Change isn't real, then the USA would have never left the Paris Accord, and would have much stricter Climate goals already in place. So yes, lies and lobbying are propping up big oil.
    - marcusverus 5y ago
      The US is still on a path to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, so I'm not sure how this makes any sense. source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-agreement-united-states-commitment/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-agreement-united-states-c...
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    > As soon as the truth became clear, their industry was absolutely crushed Gonna have to disagree with you on that one... https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PM
gaze 5y ago
Just responding to demand by hiring lobbyists yup sure.
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
While I do agree that it's overly simplistic to exclusively blame oil companies, and for the most part agree that we are all complicit, it isn't quite as straightforward as that. Most of our jobs depend on the creation of demand for products and services that didn't exist yesterday. Capitalism isn't strictly about fulfilling our needs, but perpetually creating new needs, in order to perpetually generate more profit. Those needs become real, we're all complicit only in that all of us are incapable at this point of honestly living a fossil fuel free life. We can't radically change our society at this point, but it's naive and incorrect to assume that our unsustainable way of life was the only option. Most indigenous peoples around the globe had lived in a way that was sustainable. The Pre-columbian population of the America's is estimated to have been as high as 112 million people [0]. The societies were large and complex and yet still were able to avoid destroying their local portion of the biosphere. Even in our industrial society there have been critics of our way of life every generation and there have been people working to silence that criticism, and it's not just the average person doing this work. One the example that I find particularly surprising is that the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, published in 1972, was a fairly major part of the American zeitgeist, so much so that Ronal Reagan specifically attacked this idea in his famous quote: > There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder. Consequently an era of aggressive neoliberalism means that ideologically people are less willing to accept that infinite growth on a finite planet is a problem than they were 50 years ago. I think it's important not to fall into the easy trap of thinking that a bunch of evil oil execs are solely responsible for climate change, but at the same time it's overly simplistic, and perhaps equally dangerous, to simply say "this is what everyone wanted". A severe alcoholic might want to quit drinking, but at the same time wants to continue, if there is someone in that person's life encouraging and enabling their drinking we typically find that individual culpable in the former's struggle to recover. [0] https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm
splatcollision 5y ago
They call themselves "energy" companies, so where does it matter where that energy comes from? In that perfect world where once they knew early on that the consumption of their product would lead to an uninhabitable planet for future generations (because that's what we're facing now), couldn't they have pivoted (slowly) towards true renewables and battery technology? They could have been the leaders instead of the culprits, and positioned for greater long term growth and shareholder value, instead of the relatively short term profits of business as usual. As long as we're writing science fiction that is... But someone somewhere made a choice to bury the science and keep the status quo, either by action or inaction.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Some of them did. The first solar panel I ever saw in person had a BP logo on it. But big ships turn very slowly.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  They do invest in renewable energy, as it becomes the clear replacement for diesel and gasoline. First you had the decarbonization of the electric grid, and of course that those companies de-carbonized first. Now that cars are getting de-carbonized, you see Shell, BP and others invest in green energy as well. These are companies that respond to shareholders, not sure how they could "invest for the greater good" at a loss without betraying their investors. Only governments can invest at a loos, if the public opinion can stomach it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/29/shell-plans-to-double-down-on-strengths-as-a-retailer-in-new-net-zero-world/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/29/shell... https://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-bets-future-on-green-energy-but-investors-remain-wary-11601402304 https://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-bets-future-on-green-energy-...
akamaka 5y ago
I used to only blame consumers, until I learned how inefficient oil production is and how much CO2 is emitted at the oilfield. Yes, some oil companies are burning huge amounts of oil and methane before the product even reaches the end user. For decades, these companies have chosen against implementing process improvements, and the only way they will do anything is by penalizing them. https://news.stanford.edu/2018/08/30/measuring-crude-oils-carbon-footprint/ https://news.stanford.edu/2018/08/30/measuring-crude-oils-ca...
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  How is this different from literally any company, though? If it would be more profitable to be efficient, they would be. Where are these mythical giant companies that are foregoing profits and doing the right thing and not getting sued by shareholders?
  - fisf 5y ago
    Because they are creating negative externalities that are not priced.
ren_engineer 5y ago
the tragedy is that we'd probably be carbon neutral if it wasn't for activists who lobbied against nuclear energy decades ago because it wasn't "environmentally friendly"
- pjc50 5y ago
  It was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons; Greenpeace got their start protesting against atom bomb tests in the Pacific, and later against the dumping of radioactive waste in the sea. The pollutants are uniquely permanent, and not enough effort was made to not just contaminate the world. Perhaps the nuclear industry needs to examine why their marketing failed where the oil industry succeeded.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    From what I understand, nuclear power was “inextricably linked with nuclear weapons” because it was designed to be that way. From what I hear, it can, and could, relatively easily be designed otherwise, but the powers that be wanted nuclear weapons at the time.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Absolutely; the power generation was almost a side effect of producing plutonium. This also cross funded the projects. Many of the countries with reactors have the bomb (notable exceptions: Canada, Japan, Germany)
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    It's largely because of the free market. There is not really a nuclear "industry", nuclear plants are more of a government thing worldwide. Governments aren't as good at the ruthless cost-cutting and decision-making that is needed to be competitive with the private sector. It's hard to imagine an Exxon-for-nuclear when you consider that nuclear fuel is impossible to acquire privately.
laumars 5y ago
Ah the old “don’t hate the player hate the game” argument. It’s quite possible to hate both. Yes we as a populous need to do our part too but the oil companies aren’t providing us with their services out of generosity. They’ve been actively campaigning against change. Which is literally what this submission is trying highlight.
throwaway894345 5y ago
These disinformation campaigns are a major obstacle to introducing the kind of reforms required to decarbonize our economy. Overcoming these obstacles largely requires shining a light on their bad behavior so the oil companies (and other industry groups) lose credibility and thus undermine their disinformation campaigns. Perhaps to your point, there's no way out of this mess without carbon pricing, and even Democrats (who profess to believe that climate change is an existential threat) won't rally behind it even though it would free up massive amounts of money to fund their redistributive programs--choosing instead to spend large amounts of money on symbolic efforts such as a "citizens climate corps". I suspect this speaks in large part to the extent to which corporations have politicians in their pockets (certainly Joe Manchin is in the pocket of the coal industry and doesn't even pretend otherwise). Note that this isn't to say Republicans are better--by and large Republicans haven't even signed onto the idea that climate change poses an existential threat. EDIT: everyone should write their congresspeople and urge them to support carbon pricing initiatives. Here's a dead-simple link that takes your email and your address, identifies your representatives, and gives you a form pre-populated with a canned message that will be emailed when you click "submit": https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/
betterunix2 5y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... That is not "just responding to demand," it is actively working to inflate demand. Oil companies have worked hard for decades to keep people in their cars, including participating in the conspiracy to dismantle electric streetcar lines across America (along with GM and several tire manufacturers). You say we need to make oil less competitive, but oil companies are actively working against efforts to do so.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. No, they’re not. > We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it.

relax88 5y ago
They are doing both. Cigarettes are a luxury item. Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. You could fire all of the corporate PR propagandists and lobbyists on the planet and I doubt it would make a dramatic dent in oil consumption. Couldn’t possibly hurt though!
- mindslight 5y ago
  If you want to frame this in terms of the demand side, then downsizing all of the PR propagandists would be a great start, along with all the other zero sum jobs. Instead of efficiency gains causing people to work less and consume less resources for the same output, central banks insist on "full employment" stimulus that creates make-work jobs to compensate. And despite their utility being zero-sum, these workers are churning hard in the rat race - buying new cars, fancy clothes, big houses, and other wasteful spending as they're time strapped. If instead of churning these people were allowed to just retire, they would use much less resources. But it seems like we can't insist on financial reform to slow down the economy, because every crisis becomes an excuse for the central banks to pump the gas while scaring people with the deflation bogeyman. And so we're stuck focusing on direct intervention to prevent the ever growing throng of antiproductive labor from doing as much damage.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I’ve never heard a complete argument as to how central bank policy makes people want new cars, fancy clothes, or big houses (or tropical and ski vacations)… I think people want those luxuries and (many) are willing to work for them entirely independent of central bank policy.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      Isn't it basic that if there's no point to saving and investing is a rigged casino, you might as well spend it on something fun? Consume consume consume! It's good for the economy (if you don't grow exponentially at any environmental cost then you can't keep up with inflation and our economy collapses)
      - luckylion 5y ago
        > Isn't it basic that if there's no point to saving and investing is a rigged casino, you might as well spend it on something fun? I don't think it works that way. I know a few people who are very financially conservative, and I am as well. None of them have responded to interest rates of 0% by consuming more. Everyone has shifted their accepted risk a little bit, but that's about it, they're still putting aside money. On the other hand, the people I know that are spending every available coin for vacation and consumption already did so 20 years ago.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Have you, or someone you know, ever alternated between having a high-compensation low-free-time (eg high paid tech job), and low/no-compensation high-free-time (ie funemployment) ? They're two completely different operating modes. In the first mode, every minute of time is valuable so you pay more for convenience (eg restaurant food, same-day shipping), and when you're not working you're willing to spend a lot of money to "relax harder". You also tend to buy new gadgets for the dopamine release and hope of doing something with them, and then never quite get around to actually using them. In the second mode, you're willing to spend more time to get routine things done, engage in hobbies that take patience, cook your own meals, and generally try to keep your burn rate lower. The financial treadmill pushes people towards the first mode, as one's burn rate always includes housing rent that demands a significant base level of income.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  > You could fire all of the corporate PR propagandists and lobbyists on the planet and I doubt it would make a dramatic dent in oil consumption. There's a good chance we could have had a carbon price or other real measures 10 or more years ago without the malignant denialism seed planted by their propagandists.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread. Right now we are going through a technological revolution in humanity, maybe on the level of the development of agriculture, in how we generate energy. Renewables and storage are often cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment, and they are getting cheaper just like Moore's law describes the densification of transistors on chips. HN is full of technologists. We, of all people, should recognize the capacity for technology change. And that technology change is actual work, that needs actual funding and labor, in order to happen. We do not need fossil fuels for modern life, if we develop the technology. Dedicated technologists and entrepreneurs over the past 50 years have made solar power the cheapest energy out there, despite massive political power and the all the money of fossil fuel companies fighting against them. If we had prioritized solar and storage, could we have accelerated the tech's development by 10 years? 20 years? We don't have every single aspect of technology for decarbonization solved yet. Aviation fuel, for example. But that doesn't mean we can't, it just means that we haven't tried hard enough.
  - relax88 5y ago
    When I say petroleum products are a requirement for modern life, what I mean is that more than 80% of the energy driving modern society comes from fossil fuels. It probably doesn’t have to be that way, but it is. You definitely can’t say that for cigarettes. I think that you raise a valid point, but also that you’re far too optimistic about renewables. The people of HN are indeed very tech focused, and I believe that such optimism about energy transformation with renewables may be more difficult to foster if this forum were called “Engineering and physics news” simply because technologists tend to suffer from the “Law of the hammer” problem. There are very real engineering challenges with renewables that may very well preclude the kind of dramatic progress you’re referring to. Solar and Wind for example require huge amounts of land, and have a fairly high materials throughput as their lifespan is typically only 15-20 years. All of that effort is spent gathering a diffuse source of energy. There are very real physical limits to how much energy you can gather per square foot, per kg of silica, concrete, or steel. I think your sentiment is correct about nuclear though, which makes me wonder how much big oil has been funding groups like the Sierra Club et al. who have spent nearly half a decade campaigning against nuclear energy.
refurb 5y ago
Nope. Consumers knew burning gasoline and diesel created pollution 60 years ago. They could have push for clean alternatives but didnt. Don’t give them a pass.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  A pass on what? Are we going to punish them?
- pjc50 5y ago
  Some did. The green parties go a long way back.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  So did the oil companies, and they still continued lobbying against environmental regulations and in favor of fossil fuels. So why are you giving them a pass?
  - refurb 5y ago
    I’m not. Why are you giving consumers a pass?
coryrc 5y ago
Is Big Oil why we can't have affordable, safe, quiet housing in dense cities? Is Big Oil why people like taking planes to Hawaii? Is Big Oil why it's much cheaper to heat with natural gas?
- drdeca 5y ago
  I can’t say definitively for the first one, but for the second one, obviously not. However, lies are bad. Presumably they had a motivation to tell such lies, yes? Presumably they believed that telling such lies were to their benefit? Presumably the mechanism by which they believed telling such lies would be to their benefit would be by influencing the actions of others? Surely you don’t think the reason for the lies is just that they would feel socially awkward if they had been honest? Presumably they perceived a risk that if they hadn’t lied, that some regulations would have been imposed. These regulations could have restricted emissions by reducing consumption. Yes, this would mean that consumers would lose something they wanted. This does not justify lies.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    > this would mean that consumers would lose something they wanted. When was the last time politicians voted for something >55% of their voters didn't want? LBJ and the Civil Rights Act? How did that turn out? Number 1 shared American value is mass consumerism.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      I didn’t say they people would be against the regulation. I said they would lose something they wanted, which is something people do basically whenever they spend money (they lose money, which is something they want, in exchange for goods or services that they want more).
- coryrc 5y ago
  To answer my questions: 1 Not to my knowledge; housing policy reflects the desire for segregation. 2 No, Hawaii is nice. 3 No, it's physics. Until very recently even a heat pump would burn more hydrocarbons using the grid than direct heating and cost a lot more.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> > People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. > No, they’re not. That would be more convincing if you gave a reason why you say "no, they're not". Even better would be evidence.
- rangerelf 5y ago
  > > > People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. > > No, they’re not. > That would be more convincing if you gave a reason why you say "no, they're not". Even better would be evidence. He did give his reasoning, you just chose not to quote it: > > Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it. And his reasoning was based on propaganda, if oil companies are just passive actors responding to demand, what's the need for such vicious amounts of lobbying and propaganda? My guess is that they're creating the need, and making sure that information and products that go against that propaganda don't become widespread.
- bwha 5y ago
  Sigh. I mean are people really this unaware of the decades long efforts by oil companies to cover up the truth of what was going on? I'll act in good faith and believe they are. One quick summary by the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 Choice quotes from above: "... I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind. They (the oil execs) were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups..." An in depth look in podcast format. https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ Season Summaries: Season 1: The Origins of Climate Denial traced the corporate-funded creation and spread of climate denial, including interviews with former Exxon scientists, primary source documents, and an in-depth look at the history of fossil fuel-funded influence campaigns. Season 2: Hot Water follows a group of West Coast crab fisherman who are experiencing first-hand the devastating impacts of climate change. And this unlikely group of climate activists just became the first industry to sue big oil. Season 3: The Mad Men of Climate Denial digs into the history of fossil fuel propaganda and the few “Mad Men of climate denial” who shaped it. Season 4: There Will Be Fraud follows the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to use the COVID-19 pandemic to push through its wishlist of deregulation and subsidies. Season 5: La Lucha En La Jungla looks at the decades-long battle between indigenous groups in the Ecuadorian Amazon and Chevron. Season 6: The Bridge to Nowhere: A season in three parts about the past, present, and future of the natural gas industry.
marcusverus 5y ago
> Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it. These really aren't very similar. Big Tobacco's lies were the only thing propping up the tobacco industry. As soon as the truth became clear, their industry was absolutely crushed. The truth about climate change has been clear for decades, but unlike the situation with tobacco, the demand for Oil & Gas keeps on growing[0]. This is because, unlike tobacco, Oil & Gas is absolutely indispensable--especially for developing countries. Lying about climate change was a terrible thing, and it cost us precious time. But we still need them to keep the lights on, and pretending that the act of producing Oil & Gas today--when it is literally a hard requirement to keep the lights on around the world-- is somehow pernicious, is just silliness. The world is stressful enough without all the outrage theatre. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ggggtez 5y ago
  Arguably the only thing propping up the oil industry is lies as well... If it wasn't for the big lie that Climate Change isn't real, then the USA would have never left the Paris Accord, and would have much stricter Climate goals already in place. So yes, lies and lobbying are propping up big oil.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    The US is still on a path to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, so I'm not sure how this makes any sense. source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-agreement-united-states-commitment/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-agreement-united-states-c...
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > As soon as the truth became clear, their industry was absolutely crushed Gonna have to disagree with you on that one... https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PM

gaze 5y ago

Just responding to demand by hiring lobbyists yup sure.

baron_harkonnen 5y ago

While I do agree that it's overly simplistic to exclusively blame oil companies, and for the most part agree that we are all complicit, it isn't quite as straightforward as that. Most of our jobs depend on the creation of demand for products and services that didn't exist yesterday. Capitalism isn't strictly about fulfilling our needs, but perpetually creating new needs, in order to perpetually generate more profit. Those needs become real, we're all complicit only in that all of us are incapable at this point of honestly living a fossil fuel free life. We can't radically change our society at this point, but it's naive and incorrect to assume that our unsustainable way of life was the only option. Most indigenous peoples around the globe had lived in a way that was sustainable. The Pre-columbian population of the America's is estimated to have been as high as 112 million people [0]. The societies were large and complex and yet still were able to avoid destroying their local portion of the biosphere. Even in our industrial society there have been critics of our way of life every generation and there have been people working to silence that criticism, and it's not just the average person doing this work. One the example that I find particularly surprising is that the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, published in 1972, was a fairly major part of the American zeitgeist, so much so that Ronal Reagan specifically attacked this idea in his famous quote: > There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder. Consequently an era of aggressive neoliberalism means that ideologically people are less willing to accept that infinite growth on a finite planet is a problem than they were 50 years ago. I think it's important not to fall into the easy trap of thinking that a bunch of evil oil execs are solely responsible for climate change, but at the same time it's overly simplistic, and perhaps equally dangerous, to simply say "this is what everyone wanted". A severe alcoholic might want to quit drinking, but at the same time wants to continue, if there is someone in that person's life encouraging and enabling their drinking we typically find that individual culpable in the former's struggle to recover. [0] https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm

splatcollision 5y ago

They call themselves "energy" companies, so where does it matter where that energy comes from? In that perfect world where once they knew early on that the consumption of their product would lead to an uninhabitable planet for future generations (because that's what we're facing now), couldn't they have pivoted (slowly) towards true renewables and battery technology? They could have been the leaders instead of the culprits, and positioned for greater long term growth and shareholder value, instead of the relatively short term profits of business as usual. As long as we're writing science fiction that is... But someone somewhere made a choice to bury the science and keep the status quo, either by action or inaction.

nitrogen 5y ago
Some of them did. The first solar panel I ever saw in person had a BP logo on it. But big ships turn very slowly.
flavius29663 5y ago
They do invest in renewable energy, as it becomes the clear replacement for diesel and gasoline. First you had the decarbonization of the electric grid, and of course that those companies de-carbonized first. Now that cars are getting de-carbonized, you see Shell, BP and others invest in green energy as well. These are companies that respond to shareholders, not sure how they could "invest for the greater good" at a loss without betraying their investors. Only governments can invest at a loos, if the public opinion can stomach it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/29/shell-plans-to-double-down-on-strengths-as-a-retailer-in-new-net-zero-world/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/29/shell... https://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-bets-future-on-green-energy-but-investors-remain-wary-11601402304 https://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-bets-future-on-green-energy-...

akamaka 5y ago

I used to only blame consumers, until I learned how inefficient oil production is and how much CO2 is emitted at the oilfield. Yes, some oil companies are burning huge amounts of oil and methane before the product even reaches the end user. For decades, these companies have chosen against implementing process improvements, and the only way they will do anything is by penalizing them. https://news.stanford.edu/2018/08/30/measuring-crude-oils-carbon-footprint/ https://news.stanford.edu/2018/08/30/measuring-crude-oils-ca...

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
How is this different from literally any company, though? If it would be more profitable to be efficient, they would be. Where are these mythical giant companies that are foregoing profits and doing the right thing and not getting sued by shareholders?
- fisf 5y ago
  Because they are creating negative externalities that are not priced.

ren_engineer 5y ago

the tragedy is that we'd probably be carbon neutral if it wasn't for activists who lobbied against nuclear energy decades ago because it wasn't "environmentally friendly"

pjc50 5y ago
It was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons; Greenpeace got their start protesting against atom bomb tests in the Pacific, and later against the dumping of radioactive waste in the sea. The pollutants are uniquely permanent, and not enough effort was made to not just contaminate the world. Perhaps the nuclear industry needs to examine why their marketing failed where the oil industry succeeded.
- teddyh 5y ago
  From what I understand, nuclear power was “inextricably linked with nuclear weapons” because it was designed to be that way. From what I hear, it can, and could, relatively easily be designed otherwise, but the powers that be wanted nuclear weapons at the time.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Absolutely; the power generation was almost a side effect of producing plutonium. This also cross funded the projects. Many of the countries with reactors have the bomb (notable exceptions: Canada, Japan, Germany)
- thehappypm 5y ago
  It's largely because of the free market. There is not really a nuclear "industry", nuclear plants are more of a government thing worldwide. Governments aren't as good at the ruthless cost-cutting and decision-making that is needed to be competitive with the private sector. It's hard to imagine an Exxon-for-nuclear when you consider that nuclear fuel is impossible to acquire privately.

laumars 5y ago

Ah the old “don’t hate the player hate the game” argument. It’s quite possible to hate both. Yes we as a populous need to do our part too but the oil companies aren’t providing us with their services out of generosity. They’ve been actively campaigning against change. Which is literally what this submission is trying highlight.

throwaway894345 5y ago

These disinformation campaigns are a major obstacle to introducing the kind of reforms required to decarbonize our economy. Overcoming these obstacles largely requires shining a light on their bad behavior so the oil companies (and other industry groups) lose credibility and thus undermine their disinformation campaigns. Perhaps to your point, there's no way out of this mess without carbon pricing, and even Democrats (who profess to believe that climate change is an existential threat) won't rally behind it even though it would free up massive amounts of money to fund their redistributive programs--choosing instead to spend large amounts of money on symbolic efforts such as a "citizens climate corps". I suspect this speaks in large part to the extent to which corporations have politicians in their pockets (certainly Joe Manchin is in the pocket of the coal industry and doesn't even pretend otherwise). Note that this isn't to say Republicans are better--by and large Republicans haven't even signed onto the idea that climate change poses an existential threat. EDIT: everyone should write their congresspeople and urge them to support carbon pricing initiatives. Here's a dead-simple link that takes your email and your address, identifies your representatives, and gives you a form pre-populated with a canned message that will be emailed when you click "submit": https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/

betterunix2 5y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... That is not "just responding to demand," it is actively working to inflate demand. Oil companies have worked hard for decades to keep people in their cars, including participating in the conspiracy to dismantle electric streetcar lines across America (along with GM and several tire manufacturers). You say we need to make oil less competitive, but oil companies are actively working against efforts to do so.