5 ms·

It's interesting how everyone quits Russia over this invasion (which is good, I agree with), yet no one quits that much over climate change, which threatens and

It's interesting how everyone quits Russia over this invasion (which is good, I agree with), yet no one quits that much over climate change, which threatens and kills people all the time. I wish more people would quit BP, which has done an insane amount of damage over time. Remember Deepwater Horizon [1] ? Hard to believe the company still exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

labster 5y ago
s/interesting/a goddamn tragedy/ Humans are predisposed to react to sudden, violent events, probably for evolutionary reasons. More people will die from air pollution than in the war in Ukraine, but whatever. As long as I don’t have to buy a new electric lawnmower I guess all the death is fine.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  > More people will die from air pollution than in the war in Ukraine I'm as anti air pollution as they come, but the war in Ukraine threatens a lot more than the immediate loss of life. It threatens the entire stability of Europe and beyond, that is part of why the world is taking such massive action. We're a few wrong moves away from hundreds of millions of lives lost over a few years/decades, from the war and its subsequent fallout.
- hinkley 5y ago
  We also apply strange modifiers to choice. We resent choices foisted upon us. We are more comfortable with adversity we volunteer for (or believe we did). We also blame people more for active choices than inactive ones. Even when we probably shouldn't.
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
It's not that surprising. Some states have banned government officials from even using the term "climate change" in official communication[]0]. Society is still very much in conflict about whether or not climate change even exists, which isn't going to change as long as political speech prioritizes reactionary aggression over legitimate research. The Ukraine conflict OTOH has now escalated to nuclear threats, which poses an imminent risk to pretty much everybody. This is why the EU is now mobilizing after initially staying out it. 0: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article129837...
- redisman 5y ago
  EU leaders were honestly just in shock for a day or two as were almost everyone. I watched my old countries leaders press conference and they looked like they just awoke from a nightmare. Right now the National mood has turned to anger - ergo arms are flowing in very quickly.
iamthemonster 5y ago
It's fascinating to me how well Obama's rhetoric following Deepwater Horizon worked - he very deliberately called the company "British Petroleum" where it's name was actually changed to literally the letters "BP" nine years prior (NB the lower case bp was for logo/branding purposes only) Now whenever you see Americans mention the oil/gas industry they don't seem to mention ExxonMobil, they don't seem to mention Transocean, the operators of the drilling rig, they only mention BP. The propaganda worked.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  You don't think that being responsible for the biggest oil spill ever is what leads to BP's name recognition? It took 87 days to shut down the well (and the cleanup continued for months afterwards), so it was in the news for a long time. (even though they were paying Transocean and Halliburton to run the rig, BP was found mostly responsible) Though I'm old enough that when I think of bad oil spills, the first thing that comes to mind is the Exxon Valdez spill.
  - iamthemonster 5y ago
    True; I think in reality all the supermajors get some degree of negative coverage fairly equally, I was probably full of shit when I said Obama's finger-pointing had really worked. And yes, I'm of a similar age where "Exxon Valdez" is synonymous with large oil spills.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  I think Exxon is mentioned even more than BP. This is a baseless conspiracy theory. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Exxon&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=British%20Petroleum&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - iamthemonster 5y ago
    Your search term was British Petroleum, which hasn't been the name of the company for 21 years, but when I searched for BP it actually supported your point more strongly. Thank you - I do believe that, on reflection, I was full of shit.
_8j50 5y ago
What should they quit over climate change? The earth? Is there a specific nation like Russia people can avoid for climate change? You're comparing apples and eggs here. People should quit BP? Because what? Exxon or Shell are so much better for the environment? Do you know why there is so much Russia-quitting? Because there is political incentive to do so. There is nowhere near the same amount of unity and consensus among voters of democraric nations when it comes to climate change. It's not the politicians fault either. Inability to convince fellow voters (for whatever underlying reason) is what you should be blaming. It's easy to blame politicians and corporations, that way, you can blame someone and not have to do anything about it.
- hall0ween 5y ago
  To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    > I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.
hackernewds 5y ago
Are you implying BP should self-immolate? How is BP going to quit climate change?
rillazawayyy 5y ago
That's human nature for you. We're great at instinctively identifying immediate deadly threats, like a tank or an angry bear. We're not nearly as good with slow cumulative threats, like climate change or UV exposure or smoking.
lanevorockz 5y ago
I don’t understand why you make this rhetorical point. Climate Change is a passive threat, War is an imminent one. Equating the two is evil.
- Intermernet 5y ago
  How are you classifying climate change as a passive threat? The change is actively happening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tim333 5y ago
Any evidence [man made presumably] climate change kills people all the time? At least more that would have died than if it were 1C colder as storms and the like have always been a thing. In general cold periods have been correlated with low human populations - apparently the population of Europe dropped to about 130k in the last ice age 30,000 to 13,000 years ago and is now about 750m so the warm weather doesn't seem to be killing people very effectively. One reason I mention this is not just to be an evil climate denier but also if we want a reduction in CO2 globally, it's not going to happen unless you get places like India, Russia and Asia to cut back which they probably won't do if the arguments don't stand up to fact checking. [population data https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/8232#:~:text=Correspondence%20between%20the%20population%20simulation,between%20130%2C000%20and%20410%2C000%20people https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/8232#:~:text=Corresponde... ]

labster 5y ago

s/interesting/a goddamn tragedy/ Humans are predisposed to react to sudden, violent events, probably for evolutionary reasons. More people will die from air pollution than in the war in Ukraine, but whatever. As long as I don’t have to buy a new electric lawnmower I guess all the death is fine.

scrollaway 5y ago
> More people will die from air pollution than in the war in Ukraine I'm as anti air pollution as they come, but the war in Ukraine threatens a lot more than the immediate loss of life. It threatens the entire stability of Europe and beyond, that is part of why the world is taking such massive action. We're a few wrong moves away from hundreds of millions of lives lost over a few years/decades, from the war and its subsequent fallout.
hinkley 5y ago
We also apply strange modifiers to choice. We resent choices foisted upon us. We are more comfortable with adversity we volunteer for (or believe we did). We also blame people more for active choices than inactive ones. Even when we probably shouldn't.

thr0wawayf00 5y ago

It's not that surprising. Some states have banned government officials from even using the term "climate change" in official communication[]0]. Society is still very much in conflict about whether or not climate change even exists, which isn't going to change as long as political speech prioritizes reactionary aggression over legitimate research. The Ukraine conflict OTOH has now escalated to nuclear threats, which poses an imminent risk to pretty much everybody. This is why the EU is now mobilizing after initially staying out it. 0: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article129837...

redisman 5y ago
EU leaders were honestly just in shock for a day or two as were almost everyone. I watched my old countries leaders press conference and they looked like they just awoke from a nightmare. Right now the National mood has turned to anger - ergo arms are flowing in very quickly.

iamthemonster 5y ago

It's fascinating to me how well Obama's rhetoric following Deepwater Horizon worked - he very deliberately called the company "British Petroleum" where it's name was actually changed to literally the letters "BP" nine years prior (NB the lower case bp was for logo/branding purposes only) Now whenever you see Americans mention the oil/gas industry they don't seem to mention ExxonMobil, they don't seem to mention Transocean, the operators of the drilling rig, they only mention BP. The propaganda worked.

Johnny555 5y ago
You don't think that being responsible for the biggest oil spill ever is what leads to BP's name recognition? It took 87 days to shut down the well (and the cleanup continued for months afterwards), so it was in the news for a long time. (even though they were paying Transocean and Halliburton to run the rig, BP was found mostly responsible) Though I'm old enough that when I think of bad oil spills, the first thing that comes to mind is the Exxon Valdez spill.
- iamthemonster 5y ago
  True; I think in reality all the supermajors get some degree of negative coverage fairly equally, I was probably full of shit when I said Obama's finger-pointing had really worked. And yes, I'm of a similar age where "Exxon Valdez" is synonymous with large oil spills.
cuteboy19 5y ago
I think Exxon is mentioned even more than BP. This is a baseless conspiracy theory. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Exxon&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=British%20Petroleum&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- iamthemonster 5y ago
  Your search term was British Petroleum, which hasn't been the name of the company for 21 years, but when I searched for BP it actually supported your point more strongly. Thank you - I do believe that, on reflection, I was full of shit.

_8j50 5y ago

What should they quit over climate change? The earth? Is there a specific nation like Russia people can avoid for climate change? You're comparing apples and eggs here. People should quit BP? Because what? Exxon or Shell are so much better for the environment? Do you know why there is so much Russia-quitting? Because there is political incentive to do so. There is nowhere near the same amount of unity and consensus among voters of democraric nations when it comes to climate change. It's not the politicians fault either. Inability to convince fellow voters (for whatever underlying reason) is what you should be blaming. It's easy to blame politicians and corporations, that way, you can blame someone and not have to do anything about it.

hall0ween 5y ago
To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.
- _8j50 5y ago
  > I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.

hackernewds 5y ago

Are you implying BP should self-immolate? How is BP going to quit climate change?

rillazawayyy 5y ago

That's human nature for you. We're great at instinctively identifying immediate deadly threats, like a tank or an angry bear. We're not nearly as good with slow cumulative threats, like climate change or UV exposure or smoking.

lanevorockz 5y ago

I don’t understand why you make this rhetorical point. Climate Change is a passive threat, War is an imminent one. Equating the two is evil.

Intermernet 5y ago
How are you classifying climate change as a passive threat? The change is actively happening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tim333 5y ago

Any evidence [man made presumably] climate change kills people all the time? At least more that would have died than if it were 1C colder as storms and the like have always been a thing. In general cold periods have been correlated with low human populations - apparently the population of Europe dropped to about 130k in the last ice age 30,000 to 13,000 years ago and is now about 750m so the warm weather doesn't seem to be killing people very effectively. One reason I mention this is not just to be an evil climate denier but also if we want a reduction in CO2 globally, it's not going to happen unless you get places like India, Russia and Asia to cut back which they probably won't do if the arguments don't stand up to fact checking. [population data https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/8232#:~:text=Correspondence%20between%20the%20population%20simulation,between%20130%2C000%20and%20410%2C000%20people https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/8232#:~:text=Corresponde... ]