3 ms·

I don't know what argument you are trying to respond to. I'm saying it is an evil act to supply a product while withholding the knowledge that it will cause mas

I don't know what argument you are trying to respond to. I'm saying it is an evil act to supply a product while withholding the knowledge that it will cause massive long-term harm to the entire world. How are consumers complicit? By wanting nice things?

sokoloff 4y ago
Yes: consumers are complicit by demanding the oil. Don't want Exxon, Shell, BP, et al to dig up the oil? Don't do things that consume oil and they'll stop doing it for you. But that's inconvenient, so consumers keep demanding oil and then act shocked and tut-tut when oil companies provide it.
- lasfter 4y ago
  What choice is there for consumers but to demand oil? If cities create suburban sprawl and inadequate public transportation, it's the consumer's fault for using a car? If every industry whose products I require to participate in society uses oil, how can I choose otherwise? I really don't understand your point and your smug judgements on consumers. Do you consume no oil products? Or are you just saying that you knew all along oil is bad so you're better than the 'naive masses'? I'm not shocked that oil companies provide oil, I'm shocked that many people don't want to take any action even when it comes out that the oil companies baldly lied about their role in climate change. I'm also baffled that some people want to shift the blame away from the oil companies.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think the reductionist blame-shifting of "consumers get a pass because not buying oil is inconvenient because <reasons>" is unhelpful. I don't get confused or pretend that oil companies go to great lengths to provide oil to the world because they're evil. They do it because people (you and me and billions of others) demand it and benefit from it. We can't reap the benefits and avoid the blame for our choices. (I mean, we obviously can, but that doesn't actually result in any change, so if you want to feel better but not actually change anything, have at it...)
    - lasfter 4y ago
      I don't say oil is convenient, I say oil is necessary. Is farming your own food without any fossil fuels possible for you? For me, it is impossible. Not inconvenient, not infeasible, but impossible. I can't afford land to farm on, I can't buy or catch or tend to farm animals to replace tractors, I can't buy or make farm tools that do not come from fossil fuels. Alas, I have to buy food shipped to me using fossil fuels, and farmed using fossil fuels. If I pay taxes I help subsidize fossil fuels. If I get an EV its manufacturer burned fossil fuels to create it and ship it to me. Tell me who I can vote for to change this. Tell me how I can eat without using fossil fuels. Tell me how I can work without using fossil fuels. Tell me what choices I can make so that I am not to blame. There is no such choice. I literally cannot avoid fossil fuels. Maybe if we could all agree that the fault is indeed with fossil fuel companies, who not only provide oil but also lobby the government to prevent us from moving away from it. Maybe then, we could have the actual change you are clearly so invested in.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        OK, I accept your argument that oil is necessary. What is the appropriate punishment for the companies who are reliably supplying this critical-to-society natural resource? Must the oil companies both continue to reliably supply oil and ensure that society obsoletes them? There are order of magnitude 20 million people working in oil, gas, and coal. Perhaps they could continue to focus on supplying society with these necessary resources and the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility to migrate society off of those fuels rather than making those same 20 million people have to do both jobs?
        lasfter 4y ago
        > What is the appropriate punishment Obviously this question deserves more thorough and qualified treatment than I could give, but it doesn't seem outlandish to expect that the corporation should lose some 'rights' much like people do when they face consequences for crimes. I would want the executives in this case to face personal consequences, like jail time, and I would want to e.g., prevent oil companies from lobbying, or nationalize them, or something to similar effect. > the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility Something I haven't been able to communicate to you this thread, despite my best efforts, is that taking that responsibility is impossible when fossil fuel companies have mountains of money and power. Fossil fuel companies are worth more to elected representatives than constituents, and they have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels in all sectors of society. They aren't meekly and reluctantly providing oil to us nasty consumers, they do their best to create and grow markets for their products. They are already doing 2 jobs: supply oil and ensure society doesn't obsolete them. You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change and simply like to act against their best interests, or that climate change is in our best interests. In my opinion, neither is true, and given that Exxon actively suppressed their own research on the matter, I think they would agree with me.

sokoloff 4y ago

Yes: consumers are complicit by demanding the oil. Don't want Exxon, Shell, BP, et al to dig up the oil? Don't do things that consume oil and they'll stop doing it for you. But that's inconvenient, so consumers keep demanding oil and then act shocked and tut-tut when oil companies provide it.

lasfter 4y ago
What choice is there for consumers but to demand oil? If cities create suburban sprawl and inadequate public transportation, it's the consumer's fault for using a car? If every industry whose products I require to participate in society uses oil, how can I choose otherwise? I really don't understand your point and your smug judgements on consumers. Do you consume no oil products? Or are you just saying that you knew all along oil is bad so you're better than the 'naive masses'? I'm not shocked that oil companies provide oil, I'm shocked that many people don't want to take any action even when it comes out that the oil companies baldly lied about their role in climate change. I'm also baffled that some people want to shift the blame away from the oil companies.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I think the reductionist blame-shifting of "consumers get a pass because not buying oil is inconvenient because <reasons>" is unhelpful. I don't get confused or pretend that oil companies go to great lengths to provide oil to the world because they're evil. They do it because people (you and me and billions of others) demand it and benefit from it. We can't reap the benefits and avoid the blame for our choices. (I mean, we obviously can, but that doesn't actually result in any change, so if you want to feel better but not actually change anything, have at it...)
  - lasfter 4y ago
    I don't say oil is convenient, I say oil is necessary. Is farming your own food without any fossil fuels possible for you? For me, it is impossible. Not inconvenient, not infeasible, but impossible. I can't afford land to farm on, I can't buy or catch or tend to farm animals to replace tractors, I can't buy or make farm tools that do not come from fossil fuels. Alas, I have to buy food shipped to me using fossil fuels, and farmed using fossil fuels. If I pay taxes I help subsidize fossil fuels. If I get an EV its manufacturer burned fossil fuels to create it and ship it to me. Tell me who I can vote for to change this. Tell me how I can eat without using fossil fuels. Tell me how I can work without using fossil fuels. Tell me what choices I can make so that I am not to blame. There is no such choice. I literally cannot avoid fossil fuels. Maybe if we could all agree that the fault is indeed with fossil fuel companies, who not only provide oil but also lobby the government to prevent us from moving away from it. Maybe then, we could have the actual change you are clearly so invested in.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      OK, I accept your argument that oil is necessary. What is the appropriate punishment for the companies who are reliably supplying this critical-to-society natural resource? Must the oil companies both continue to reliably supply oil and ensure that society obsoletes them? There are order of magnitude 20 million people working in oil, gas, and coal. Perhaps they could continue to focus on supplying society with these necessary resources and the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility to migrate society off of those fuels rather than making those same 20 million people have to do both jobs?
      - lasfter 4y ago
        > What is the appropriate punishment Obviously this question deserves more thorough and qualified treatment than I could give, but it doesn't seem outlandish to expect that the corporation should lose some 'rights' much like people do when they face consequences for crimes. I would want the executives in this case to face personal consequences, like jail time, and I would want to e.g., prevent oil companies from lobbying, or nationalize them, or something to similar effect. > the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility Something I haven't been able to communicate to you this thread, despite my best efforts, is that taking that responsibility is impossible when fossil fuel companies have mountains of money and power. Fossil fuel companies are worth more to elected representatives than constituents, and they have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels in all sectors of society. They aren't meekly and reluctantly providing oil to us nasty consumers, they do their best to create and grow markets for their products. They are already doing 2 jobs: supply oil and ensure society doesn't obsolete them. You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change and simply like to act against their best interests, or that climate change is in our best interests. In my opinion, neither is true, and given that Exxon actively suppressed their own research on the matter, I think they would agree with me.