8 ms·

I don’t understand what was the expectation. For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? We have legislative bodies that we literally elect an

I don’t understand what was the expectation. For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? We have legislative bodies that we literally elect and pay to do this job. Let’s stop the hypocrisy and look ourselves in the mirror.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
It kind of smells of hypocrisy, it's comparable to when some italian authorities wanted to imprison scientists for not predicting earthquakes. Lots of scientists knew about it and didn't say anything, also earthquakes happen in earthquake zones.
TinyRick 4y ago
Problem is that Big Oil pays those politicians more.
- whatever1 4y ago
  And all of the country elected to keep them in power
  - danuker 4y ago
    Here're the most-greased top 20. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2022&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cy...
  - TinyRick 4y ago
    The voters in the 70s and 80s did, sure. But as this article explains, those voters were withheld crucial information that could have informed their voting choices. 2010 was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and in the past decade+ I (and many others) have not voted for pro-oil/coal/fracking/etc candidates. Yet we're the ones that are (and will continue to) live with the consequences of Big Oil's actions from decades ago.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      they are still voting for them, for example the House of Representatives is now majority Republican who almost all don't believe in global warming or believe in it and believe "eh, whatever, I got mine". Are they not as guilty as Exxon? Are the people voting for them any less responsible than Exxon. If you participate in the modern economy, are you not also complicit?
- Barrin92 4y ago
  that's not even remotely the issue. Money may buy you access but it doesn't magically buy you votes. People could easily kick every oil lobbyist out. The genuine reason is that citizens are not willing to internalize the costs of their pollution and change their habits. Cheap gas, big cars, big houses, cheap Big Macs, cheap plane tickets is what the people vote for. Big Oil just supplies the juice.
  - TinyRick 4y ago
    > People could easily kick every oil lobbyist out. Please explain.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    That sounds like what Nicolas Cage said in Lord of War.
necrotic_comp 4y ago
The expectation is that they would take the long view and start investing in alternatives that pay more instead of burning the planet to the ground.
lasfter 4y ago
Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would have still been plenty rich enough if they did campaign against their own product, so their choice to withhold this information can only be attributed to plain greed. We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's not hypocritical to call murderers evil, and it's not unreasonable to expect that people should not murder.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Some of the people profiting from oil usage are you and me. We get (relatively) cheap transportation, cheap heating, cheap power, a huge variety of foods without regard to season, cheap vacations, etc, etc. IMO, it's less "all those other bad people are enjoying running fossil fuel companies" than it is "all of us people are enjoying the benefits of fossil fuel burning". (I daily an EV; I don't pretend that makes me any better than the average American, which is to say I am substantially worse than the average Earthling.)
  - lasfter 4y ago
    Are you saying Exxon is justified because people get to use oil? It's not about burning fossil fuels, it's about misinforming the public about the long-term dangers of your product. If I sell you a delicious candy while secretly knowing it will give you cancer in 10 years, I don't get to say "well you enjoyed the candy didn't you?" once I'm caught out.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I'm saying when we point a finger at the oil companies who sell us the oil that we demand and consume, we should recognize that there are three fingers pointing back at us. Are they blameless? Nope. Are they solely (or even primarily) to blame? Also nope.
      - lasfter 4y ago
suprjami 4y ago
Knowingly cause millions or billions of deaths and destroy the planet, or not make as much money short-term and pivot the industry to something else. Yeah, tough choice.
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
  How many billions of lives have been saved by fossil fuels and technology though? From starvation, from extreme weather events, from exposure to heat and cold? Would we be here if not for modernization and fossil fuels? If we stopped in the 60s, would other nations have done the same? Or would they have advanced to dominance?
  - suprjami 4y ago
    Burn down your house. Yeah, your house is gone, but look how warm you are today! Fossil fuels are not the only form of energy. We could have put decades of technological effort into wind and solar and battery and waves and all the other options. We'd be so much further forward than we are today. Instead the industry just lobbied and lied.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      At the time when this research happened, so in the 1970 - 80s? Yes, they were the only viable form of energy for almost everything. Suggesting that we should've ditched fossil fuels in the 70s and 80s is a bit asinine and would've resulted in immense loss of lives, especially in less developed areas of the world. There weren't really any other alternatives. Electrification is only possible due to recent advancement in (battery, PV, electronics) technology. Your analogy does not make sense because abandoning fossil fuels back then was closer to the "house burning" move. (Yes, nuclear existed. But only in some countries, and it could only cover some parts of energy usage).
      - suprjami 4y ago
        Please quote the sentence where I allegedly said to drop fossil fuels in the 70s with no viable replacement, plunging the world into a dark age. I didn't say that. Yes, fossil fuels do seem to be an unavoidable evil on the path to technological advancement. However, the point is: There were no viable alternatives for the last 50 years because the fossil fuel industry did everything in their power to cover up the impending disaster and instead focused all efforts on lobbying to maintain their profits. Imagine if Exxon had made their findings public in 1973 and had instead lobbied for renewables and moving away from fossil fuels. We'd be 50 years ahead of our current energy technology. We'd have a lot more options for generation and storage with a lot more density. The "recent advancements" are only recent because we've pissed the last 50 years against the wall so some asshole billionaires could afford more yachts. "What if someone else just kept polluting" isn't an argument. Fighting climate change is becoming a political necessity. The world has almost internationally eradicated many undesirable things like mass slavery and chemical weapons. These are also political necessities to run a successful country. In another 100 years, the idea of a country mass-burning fossil fuels will be akin to adding a Swastika to their national flag while adopting foreign policy of black slavery. Sure, they can try it, but it would be very politically and financially unpopular, and if they get too forceful then some superpower will interfere and stop them. We could be 50 years closer to that goal. But we aren't. And that's due to the fossil fuel industry's intentional deception of the entire world.
jrgoff 4y ago
They could have pivoted to more climate-friendly energy production
haxiomic 4y ago
> For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? Yes! Surely we all have a responsibility to our own _species_. If you're making something that you discover harms the species then you should change course. This company would have massive head start and could own the inevitable future of green energy if they took action then Laws are like the immune system for humanity, this is exactly the scenario it makes sense for laws to prevent
- winReInstall 4y ago
  Or at least to your own familys. My guess is, that if you made it a science to search for likely unaffected regions of the planet by climate change, you would find a lot of oil-executive real estate there. Interesting idea, would be to ban them from owing properties or living in those places. If you nail the escape hatch shut, survival instincts might even set in.
smolder 4y ago
> For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? I know people who prioritize ethics & morality tend not to get promoted too high, but that doesn't mean we should blanket forgive decision makers at oil companies for sweeping such a huge problem under the rug for as long as possible. The positive example of what to do instead would be to communicate the issue as soon as possible, not cover it up, and then pivot into the work of moving away from fossil fuel dependence.
scythe 4y ago
>We have legislative bodies that we literally elect and pay to do this job. >Let’s stop the hypocrisy and look ourselves in the mirror. [Modern electoral] Democracy doesn't really work that way. About 2/3 of people vote in the general election. Around 1/5 vote in the primaries. Maybe 1% actually sign petitions to put candidates in the primaries. "We the people" only directly influence the last step of the process, in so doing contributing about one bit of information per candidate in a two-party system. Public perception and conversation is a key mediator between the public and everything else about the candidates who ultimately run for office. This kind of "outrage" is not contrary to the democratic process; it is an essential part of the process.
avgcorrection 4y ago
Yes. Let’s look ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves why such corporate behavior is even legal in the first place. For-profit corporations—and really any kind of for-profit organization—should be made illegal. Through our legislative bodies. It’s that or extinction.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
LatteLazy 4y ago
Thank you. I thought I was the only one disgusted by this.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
There was a time in the late 70s early 80s when oil companies sought to diversify into solar and other areas. Exxon bought Zilog to diversify into semiconductors... it didn't last long. When Reagan came to power Carter's emphasis on moving towards alternative energy and away from oil came to an end. The oil companies were happy to play along and go back to being oil companies instead of energy companies that started out in oil.
voisin 4y ago
> I don’t understand what was the expectation. > For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? How about since they saw it coming to start investing in the transition to be ahead of the curve? What baffles me is that these people knew and presumably had children or grandchildren, presumably breathed the same air and had the same houses in areas prone to wildfires, etc. and yet they didn’t take actions that would have been in their own interests other than financial.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

It kind of smells of hypocrisy, it's comparable to when some italian authorities wanted to imprison scientists for not predicting earthquakes. Lots of scientists knew about it and didn't say anything, also earthquakes happen in earthquake zones.

TinyRick 4y ago

Problem is that Big Oil pays those politicians more.

whatever1 4y ago
And all of the country elected to keep them in power
- danuker 4y ago
  Here're the most-greased top 20. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2022&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cy...
- TinyRick 4y ago
  The voters in the 70s and 80s did, sure. But as this article explains, those voters were withheld crucial information that could have informed their voting choices. 2010 was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and in the past decade+ I (and many others) have not voted for pro-oil/coal/fracking/etc candidates. Yet we're the ones that are (and will continue to) live with the consequences of Big Oil's actions from decades ago.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    they are still voting for them, for example the House of Representatives is now majority Republican who almost all don't believe in global warming or believe in it and believe "eh, whatever, I got mine". Are they not as guilty as Exxon? Are the people voting for them any less responsible than Exxon. If you participate in the modern economy, are you not also complicit?
Barrin92 4y ago
that's not even remotely the issue. Money may buy you access but it doesn't magically buy you votes. People could easily kick every oil lobbyist out. The genuine reason is that citizens are not willing to internalize the costs of their pollution and change their habits. Cheap gas, big cars, big houses, cheap Big Macs, cheap plane tickets is what the people vote for. Big Oil just supplies the juice.
- TinyRick 4y ago
  > People could easily kick every oil lobbyist out. Please explain.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  That sounds like what Nicolas Cage said in Lord of War.

necrotic_comp 4y ago

The expectation is that they would take the long view and start investing in alternatives that pay more instead of burning the planet to the ground.

lasfter 4y ago

Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would have still been plenty rich enough if they did campaign against their own product, so their choice to withhold this information can only be attributed to plain greed. We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's not hypocritical to call murderers evil, and it's not unreasonable to expect that people should not murder.

sokoloff 4y ago
Some of the people profiting from oil usage are you and me. We get (relatively) cheap transportation, cheap heating, cheap power, a huge variety of foods without regard to season, cheap vacations, etc, etc. IMO, it's less "all those other bad people are enjoying running fossil fuel companies" than it is "all of us people are enjoying the benefits of fossil fuel burning". (I daily an EV; I don't pretend that makes me any better than the average American, which is to say I am substantially worse than the average Earthling.)
- lasfter 4y ago
  Are you saying Exxon is justified because people get to use oil? It's not about burning fossil fuels, it's about misinforming the public about the long-term dangers of your product. If I sell you a delicious candy while secretly knowing it will give you cancer in 10 years, I don't get to say "well you enjoyed the candy didn't you?" once I'm caught out.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I'm saying when we point a finger at the oil companies who sell us the oil that we demand and consume, we should recognize that there are three fingers pointing back at us. Are they blameless? Nope. Are they solely (or even primarily) to blame? Also nope.
    - lasfter 4y ago

suprjami 4y ago

Knowingly cause millions or billions of deaths and destroy the planet, or not make as much money short-term and pivot the industry to something else. Yeah, tough choice.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
How many billions of lives have been saved by fossil fuels and technology though? From starvation, from extreme weather events, from exposure to heat and cold? Would we be here if not for modernization and fossil fuels? If we stopped in the 60s, would other nations have done the same? Or would they have advanced to dominance?
- suprjami 4y ago
  Burn down your house. Yeah, your house is gone, but look how warm you are today! Fossil fuels are not the only form of energy. We could have put decades of technological effort into wind and solar and battery and waves and all the other options. We'd be so much further forward than we are today. Instead the industry just lobbied and lied.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    At the time when this research happened, so in the 1970 - 80s? Yes, they were the only viable form of energy for almost everything. Suggesting that we should've ditched fossil fuels in the 70s and 80s is a bit asinine and would've resulted in immense loss of lives, especially in less developed areas of the world. There weren't really any other alternatives. Electrification is only possible due to recent advancement in (battery, PV, electronics) technology. Your analogy does not make sense because abandoning fossil fuels back then was closer to the "house burning" move. (Yes, nuclear existed. But only in some countries, and it could only cover some parts of energy usage).
    - suprjami 4y ago
      Please quote the sentence where I allegedly said to drop fossil fuels in the 70s with no viable replacement, plunging the world into a dark age. I didn't say that. Yes, fossil fuels do seem to be an unavoidable evil on the path to technological advancement. However, the point is: There were no viable alternatives for the last 50 years because the fossil fuel industry did everything in their power to cover up the impending disaster and instead focused all efforts on lobbying to maintain their profits. Imagine if Exxon had made their findings public in 1973 and had instead lobbied for renewables and moving away from fossil fuels. We'd be 50 years ahead of our current energy technology. We'd have a lot more options for generation and storage with a lot more density. The "recent advancements" are only recent because we've pissed the last 50 years against the wall so some asshole billionaires could afford more yachts. "What if someone else just kept polluting" isn't an argument. Fighting climate change is becoming a political necessity. The world has almost internationally eradicated many undesirable things like mass slavery and chemical weapons. These are also political necessities to run a successful country. In another 100 years, the idea of a country mass-burning fossil fuels will be akin to adding a Swastika to their national flag while adopting foreign policy of black slavery. Sure, they can try it, but it would be very politically and financially unpopular, and if they get too forceful then some superpower will interfere and stop them. We could be 50 years closer to that goal. But we aren't. And that's due to the fossil fuel industry's intentional deception of the entire world.

jrgoff 4y ago

They could have pivoted to more climate-friendly energy production

haxiomic 4y ago

> For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? Yes! Surely we all have a responsibility to our own _species_. If you're making something that you discover harms the species then you should change course. This company would have massive head start and could own the inevitable future of green energy if they took action then Laws are like the immune system for humanity, this is exactly the scenario it makes sense for laws to prevent

winReInstall 4y ago
Or at least to your own familys. My guess is, that if you made it a science to search for likely unaffected regions of the planet by climate change, you would find a lot of oil-executive real estate there. Interesting idea, would be to ban them from owing properties or living in those places. If you nail the escape hatch shut, survival instincts might even set in.

smolder 4y ago

> For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? I know people who prioritize ethics & morality tend not to get promoted too high, but that doesn't mean we should blanket forgive decision makers at oil companies for sweeping such a huge problem under the rug for as long as possible. The positive example of what to do instead would be to communicate the issue as soon as possible, not cover it up, and then pivot into the work of moving away from fossil fuel dependence.

scythe 4y ago

>We have legislative bodies that we literally elect and pay to do this job. >Let’s stop the hypocrisy and look ourselves in the mirror. [Modern electoral] Democracy doesn't really work that way. About 2/3 of people vote in the general election. Around 1/5 vote in the primaries. Maybe 1% actually sign petitions to put candidates in the primaries. "We the people" only directly influence the last step of the process, in so doing contributing about one bit of information per candidate in a two-party system. Public perception and conversation is a key mediator between the public and everything else about the candidates who ultimately run for office. This kind of "outrage" is not contrary to the democratic process; it is an essential part of the process.

avgcorrection 4y ago

Yes. Let’s look ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves why such corporate behavior is even legal in the first place. For-profit corporations—and really any kind of for-profit organization—should be made illegal. Through our legislative bodies. It’s that or extinction.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

LatteLazy 4y ago

Thank you. I thought I was the only one disgusted by this.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

There was a time in the late 70s early 80s when oil companies sought to diversify into solar and other areas. Exxon bought Zilog to diversify into semiconductors... it didn't last long. When Reagan came to power Carter's emphasis on moving towards alternative energy and away from oil came to an end. The oil companies were happy to play along and go back to being oil companies instead of energy companies that started out in oil.

voisin 4y ago

> I don’t understand what was the expectation. > For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? How about since they saw it coming to start investing in the transition to be ahead of the curve? What baffles me is that these people knew and presumably had children or grandchildren, presumably breathed the same air and had the same houses in areas prone to wildfires, etc. and yet they didn’t take actions that would have been in their own interests other than financial.