4 ms·

This has always seemed like a weird conspiracy theory to me. (Not saying that conspiracy theories can't ever be true - just that this one seems to contradict th

by elil17 4y ago

This has always seemed like a weird conspiracy theory to me. (Not saying that conspiracy theories can't ever be true - just that this one seems to contradict the evidence). It's unclear that Getty even has a financial interest in the oil industry anymore. Getty is one of several major donors to the CEF. Others include Adam McKay, who is also on the board of directors. Why would he support the group if they were secretly pro-oil? In turn, CEF is one of many donors to Just Stop Oil, who in turn did the Van Gogh protest. I don't understand how people draw the conclusion that the Just Stop Oil protests are some sort of anti-climate conspiracy because a board member/donor to a group that gave a grant to JSO inherited oil money (but probably does not have significant financial ties to the oil industry anymore). Even if she wanted to bolster support for oil companies, why would she use this tactic? While a lot of people don't agree with the protests, I don't see anyone saying that they now support more oilfield leases as some sort of counterreaction. Plus, Getty's other donations are to far less controversial organizations that are definitely trying to solve climate change. For example, the Climate Reality Project trains people to lobby for climate-friendly regulations. It's clear that that does not align with the interests of oil. There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy (stopping new oil drilling) being funded by wealthy, fallible, non-conspiratorial people who probably think the protests will have an impact on policy and are probably wrong.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy..." My view is that there are people in our society whose personalities make them so passionate about righteous causes they wind up becoming delusional extremists. When enough of them get together and have a source of support, you can end up with this kind of thing. I have no doubt they truly believe they are helping to avert the apocalypse by doing this.
dmix 4y ago
It's like everything, it's a complicated problem that internet warriors like to over-simplify and reduce to a single boogieman (ie, rich people). You see this in every major social issue, for example in housing 'affordability' everyone tries to blame foreign Chinese buyers, even when (depending on the area) they might only be 10% of all house buyers. Part of the problem, yes, but rarely even close to the bulk of it. Most importantly it distracts away from all the other more natural causes of the problem that are harder to confront (like well-intentioned run-of-the-mill climate activists making dumb decisions all on their own).
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  A group of 10% of buyers in a market is huge. Definitely enough to drive prices up substantially if this group has significantly higher means. In Europe we traditionally take a very dim view of using houses as a financial speculation item. Though neoliberalism has unfortunately undermined that somewhat. But Chinese investors aren't really a problem here. I think it's more NIMBY zoning restrictions that makes house building not keep up with population growth.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    40k people move to Seattle each year. Around 20k houses (combination of apartments for rent, condos + houses for sale) are built per year. Housing prices in major cities are the most obvious and stupid supply and demand situation in existence. Build 100k houses per year in Seattle and prices will go down, and the same is true for any city that is facing a housing price problem.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Those Foreign Boogiemen are buying existing housing supply AND enriching existing domestic citizens in the process (usually local mom and pops in previously poor areas) getting *more* than they would be otherwise. Therefore putting tons of capital back into the domestic market that would otherwise be in foreign markets. If existing residents are now flush with capital why can't they invest in new properties and businesses which benefit us domestically? Not building new houses is the bulk of the problem. Foreign buyers are still a problem when you aren't building enough houses because at some level you won't be building enough for good reasons. 10% of the time you shouldn't be building new buildings for good reasons like... heritage buildings or low income developments. But zoning, building height, etc etc (and often over-zealous heritage policy) limits housing to a much higher degree. These compounding restrictions on supply side capital investments, like how the number of small businesses being created has declined in the last two decades, is another big part of it. Regular people having more $$ via productive capital investment = more money for housing. The housing crisis is largely a reflection of a lack of places for productive capital. Which is a complicated multi-factor problem, that foreign buyers only play a small part.

by elil17 4y ago

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>"There's a much simpler theory: Just Stop Oil is a bunch of normal, fallible, non-conspiratorial people using a distasteful and likely ineffective tactic to advocate for a sensible policy..." My view is that there are people in our society whose personalities make them so passionate about righteous causes they wind up becoming delusional extremists. When enough of them get together and have a source of support, you can end up with this kind of thing. I have no doubt they truly believe they are helping to avert the apocalypse by doing this.

dmix 4y ago

It's like everything, it's a complicated problem that internet warriors like to over-simplify and reduce to a single boogieman (ie, rich people). You see this in every major social issue, for example in housing 'affordability' everyone tries to blame foreign Chinese buyers, even when (depending on the area) they might only be 10% of all house buyers. Part of the problem, yes, but rarely even close to the bulk of it. Most importantly it distracts away from all the other more natural causes of the problem that are harder to confront (like well-intentioned run-of-the-mill climate activists making dumb decisions all on their own).

GekkePrutser 4y ago
A group of 10% of buyers in a market is huge. Definitely enough to drive prices up substantially if this group has significantly higher means. In Europe we traditionally take a very dim view of using houses as a financial speculation item. Though neoliberalism has unfortunately undermined that somewhat. But Chinese investors aren't really a problem here. I think it's more NIMBY zoning restrictions that makes house building not keep up with population growth.
- com2kid 4y ago
  40k people move to Seattle each year. Around 20k houses (combination of apartments for rent, condos + houses for sale) are built per year. Housing prices in major cities are the most obvious and stupid supply and demand situation in existence. Build 100k houses per year in Seattle and prices will go down, and the same is true for any city that is facing a housing price problem.
- dmix 4y ago
  Those Foreign Boogiemen are buying existing housing supply AND enriching existing domestic citizens in the process (usually local mom and pops in previously poor areas) getting *more* than they would be otherwise. Therefore putting tons of capital back into the domestic market that would otherwise be in foreign markets. If existing residents are now flush with capital why can't they invest in new properties and businesses which benefit us domestically? Not building new houses is the bulk of the problem. Foreign buyers are still a problem when you aren't building enough houses because at some level you won't be building enough for good reasons. 10% of the time you shouldn't be building new buildings for good reasons like... heritage buildings or low income developments. But zoning, building height, etc etc (and often over-zealous heritage policy) limits housing to a much higher degree. These compounding restrictions on supply side capital investments, like how the number of small businesses being created has declined in the last two decades, is another big part of it. Regular people having more $$ via productive capital investment = more money for housing. The housing crisis is largely a reflection of a lack of places for productive capital. Which is a complicated multi-factor problem, that foreign buyers only play a small part.