3 ms·

> Yet leading energy companies are intent on pushing the world in the opposite direction, expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no altern

by sfn42 3y ago

> Yet leading energy companies are intent on pushing the world in the opposite direction, expanding fossil fuel production and insisting that there is no alternative. It is evidence that they are motivated not by record warming, but by record profits, experts say. No shit, Sherlock. You really think corporations are going to let a mountain of money just sit there if it's up for grabs? This is not the responsibility of you and me, buying an electric car and flying less won't save the world. It's not the responsibility of corporations, they just won't do it so expecting them to magically just do something that isn't ideal for making money won't get you anywhere. This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. In order for corporations to go green it needs to make them money. In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. The again it doesn't matter, it's way too late now.

papandada 3y ago
So, of course corporations will not be benevolent, but of course individuals should have been. But corporations, even governments, are just the amplification and personification of every selfish element in human nature, which tends to trump benevolence in any sort of "prisoner's dilemma" interaction. So all we actually need to do is eliminate selfishness from all humanity.
tremon 3y ago
It's not the responsibility of corporations This is where you're wrong. It's not the responsibility of regular businesses, but corporations were specifically created by governments to manage narrow societal interests, such as the railways or a national telephone network. And as an extension of government, corporations do have a reponsiblity towards the broader society. The fact that now every large business is allowed to name itself a corporation and is allowed to chase any business interest, whether it's related to their original charter or not, is a travesty. Corporations should only be allowed to operate within their charter, and government should be able to revoke that charter if the corporation acts contrary to society's interests. If a company is not prepared to operate according to a government charter, they should not be called a corporation (and not get the tax benefits), they're an enterprise.
- makomk 3y ago
  The problem is that the social interests we expect Big Oil to pursue (or at least the ones the Guardian does) are contradictory. The Guardian wants Big Oil to throttle back production in order to reduce CO2 emissions, but at the same time it attacks them for the direct consequence of this which is that fossil fuels and everything produced with them increase in costs until the amount that people can afford to consume shrinks to match that decreased production, making people worse off in real terms. This is an inherent consequence of reducing CO2 emissions this way because it's not possible to burn fossil fuels that aren't there.
- usrusr 3y ago
  How is “let's pool capital to make profit" not a valid charter? The problem is that the invisible hand, when it comes to stock markets, has a tendency to "maximise evil": wrt climate change this means that everybody who thinks that maybe we should better burn less carbon will be eager to sell if they still own something in that sector, and the highest bidders will be people eager to go on until even the last remaining unoxydized carbon atom in the crust is transferred into the atmosphere. Charters are for protecting investors from "that's not what I paid for!" surprises, if anything they'd make it harder for hydrocarbon extraction corporations to pivot away.
- sfn42 3y ago
  If that's what a corporation is supposed to be sure, but it sure as hell isn't what corporations appear to actually be so I don't think I agree with your assertion that I'm wrong. I could agree that the definition for corporation is wrong or that the concept has been corrupted.
bdcravens 3y ago
> In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. Not necessarily, you need only appeal to their rational self-interests. People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options.
- azinman2 3y ago
  > People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options Rich people do. Generally speaking, the cheapest option is what prevails.
throw0101a 3y ago
> It's not the responsibility of corporations […] Yes it is; or rather, it is the responsibility of the human beings that make up corporations to not destroy the society with-in which they live. > This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. People make up corporation too.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Did you even read my comment? You can say it's their responsibility all day long, they aren't doing anything and they won't start doing anything until it makes them more money than the alternatives. So either the government needs to make it profitable to go green, or it needs to find another way to make them go green. Or we can keep sitting here like a bunch of morons yelling at Taylor Swift for flying her private jet and yelling at BP for polluting and they will keep merrily ignoring us while swimming in money.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
I think your analysis is on point except for the last sentence. We have the system that we have. In said system, corporations behave as close to the "paperclip maximiser" AI as possible, replacing "paperclip" with "share value". Short of changing the system for a better one (which I would argue is not feasible, but that's another topic), all we can do is change the conditions under which share value will increase, such that a corporation gets greater share value for being less bad for the environment. That's where some problems arise, as too many people advocate for de facto individual responsibility of consumers, in the spirit of "voting with your wallet", as if it were even possible to convince a big enough proportion of consumers to have any noticeable effect on profits, let alone share value, and thus on the actions of the paperclip maximisers. That is as pointless as a solution as it would be to advocate for individual responsibility of investors to "vote with their portfolio" and invest more in corporations that do follow through with their climate pledges. Consumers and individual investors are not as soulless as corporations, but they still have their own economic interests to fulfil. The only way to get the paperclip maximisers to change their behaviour is to impose strong internalising costs such as carbon taxation and well calibrated punitive tariffs, and that has to be done at the level of Government(s), namely four: the USA, the EU, the PRC, and India. Make it so that a business that does not follow the rules simply cannot operate in these economies. Make it so that owning stocks in a business that does not follow the rules is taxed to a prohibitive amount. Make it so that a business that follows the rules but does not optimise for climate neutrality is blown out of the market because their prices are too damn high compared to the ones that do. Ban trade from any nation that does not impose similar draconian measures. Now we're talking. And it doesn't matter that it's way too late now. Let's do it anyway.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Totally agree, even with the last sentence. Except I'm a bit more pessimistic and don't expect any of this to ever happen. At least not until it's even more too late than it already is.
scottLobster 3y ago
It's not anywhere close to too late. I'm so sick and tired of this nihilistic doomerism because it turns out the world doesn't work like a freaking Superhero cartoon 2-parter where the bad guys only win once at the end of part 1, and then the heroes come back from momentary defeat and save the day in part 2, looking over a prosperous sunrise as the credits roll. Back in the middle ages they started cathedrals knowing that the would take multiple generations to complete, but we're so decadent as a society that we can't do the same for an arguably existential crisis. Yes, our children may have some challenges due to climate change, and perhaps an overall lower quality of life, and they don't deserve that and it sucks. How about we try and make sure that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren have what they need to turn the corner? If the best we can do in our lifetimes is slow the decay and limit the damage, that's still WAY better than nothing.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Your grandchildren (I won't have any) will probably struggle with things like water and food availability, possibly famine and I wouldn't be surprised if wars break out over these things. I also don't know if it will necessarily be grandchildren. It might very well be getting pretty bad by the time we're thinking about retirement. I'm hoping for the best and I hope I'm wrong but this is what it looks like to me, based on various reports and such that I see. The temperature graph is clearly exponential (at least for now) so the next 1.5 degrees are going to come much faster than the previous. I won't be surprised if we live to see 5, which is generally considered apocalyptic. And we haven't even started hitting the brakes, not even slightly. We're still producing more CO2 every single year than the previous. So yeah, I'm not optimistic. If you want to be that's fine and I'll happily support any proper action. But there's nothing I can do beyond live my best life while I can.

by sfn42 3y ago

papandada 3y ago

So, of course corporations will not be benevolent, but of course individuals should have been. But corporations, even governments, are just the amplification and personification of every selfish element in human nature, which tends to trump benevolence in any sort of "prisoner's dilemma" interaction. So all we actually need to do is eliminate selfishness from all humanity.

tremon 3y ago

It's not the responsibility of corporations This is where you're wrong. It's not the responsibility of regular businesses, but corporations were specifically created by governments to manage narrow societal interests, such as the railways or a national telephone network. And as an extension of government, corporations do have a reponsiblity towards the broader society. The fact that now every large business is allowed to name itself a corporation and is allowed to chase any business interest, whether it's related to their original charter or not, is a travesty. Corporations should only be allowed to operate within their charter, and government should be able to revoke that charter if the corporation acts contrary to society's interests. If a company is not prepared to operate according to a government charter, they should not be called a corporation (and not get the tax benefits), they're an enterprise.

makomk 3y ago
The problem is that the social interests we expect Big Oil to pursue (or at least the ones the Guardian does) are contradictory. The Guardian wants Big Oil to throttle back production in order to reduce CO2 emissions, but at the same time it attacks them for the direct consequence of this which is that fossil fuels and everything produced with them increase in costs until the amount that people can afford to consume shrinks to match that decreased production, making people worse off in real terms. This is an inherent consequence of reducing CO2 emissions this way because it's not possible to burn fossil fuels that aren't there.
usrusr 3y ago
How is “let's pool capital to make profit" not a valid charter? The problem is that the invisible hand, when it comes to stock markets, has a tendency to "maximise evil": wrt climate change this means that everybody who thinks that maybe we should better burn less carbon will be eager to sell if they still own something in that sector, and the highest bidders will be people eager to go on until even the last remaining unoxydized carbon atom in the crust is transferred into the atmosphere. Charters are for protecting investors from "that's not what I paid for!" surprises, if anything they'd make it harder for hydrocarbon extraction corporations to pivot away.
sfn42 3y ago
If that's what a corporation is supposed to be sure, but it sure as hell isn't what corporations appear to actually be so I don't think I agree with your assertion that I'm wrong. I could agree that the definition for corporation is wrong or that the concept has been corrupted.

bdcravens 3y ago

> In order for people to buy the right stuff it needs to be the cheapest option. Anything beyond that will never ever work. Not necessarily, you need only appeal to their rational self-interests. People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options.

azinman2 3y ago
> People frequently buy things that aren't the cheapest options Rich people do. Generally speaking, the cheapest option is what prevails.

throw0101a 3y ago

> It's not the responsibility of corporations […] Yes it is; or rather, it is the responsibility of the human beings that make up corporations to not destroy the society with-in which they live. > This is, unequivocally, the responsibility of governments and by extension people, us. People make up corporation too.

sfn42 3y ago
Did you even read my comment? You can say it's their responsibility all day long, they aren't doing anything and they won't start doing anything until it makes them more money than the alternatives. So either the government needs to make it profitable to go green, or it needs to find another way to make them go green. Or we can keep sitting here like a bunch of morons yelling at Taylor Swift for flying her private jet and yelling at BP for polluting and they will keep merrily ignoring us while swimming in money.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

I think your analysis is on point except for the last sentence. We have the system that we have. In said system, corporations behave as close to the "paperclip maximiser" AI as possible, replacing "paperclip" with "share value". Short of changing the system for a better one (which I would argue is not feasible, but that's another topic), all we can do is change the conditions under which share value will increase, such that a corporation gets greater share value for being less bad for the environment. That's where some problems arise, as too many people advocate for de facto individual responsibility of consumers, in the spirit of "voting with your wallet", as if it were even possible to convince a big enough proportion of consumers to have any noticeable effect on profits, let alone share value, and thus on the actions of the paperclip maximisers. That is as pointless as a solution as it would be to advocate for individual responsibility of investors to "vote with their portfolio" and invest more in corporations that do follow through with their climate pledges. Consumers and individual investors are not as soulless as corporations, but they still have their own economic interests to fulfil. The only way to get the paperclip maximisers to change their behaviour is to impose strong internalising costs such as carbon taxation and well calibrated punitive tariffs, and that has to be done at the level of Government(s), namely four: the USA, the EU, the PRC, and India. Make it so that a business that does not follow the rules simply cannot operate in these economies. Make it so that owning stocks in a business that does not follow the rules is taxed to a prohibitive amount. Make it so that a business that follows the rules but does not optimise for climate neutrality is blown out of the market because their prices are too damn high compared to the ones that do. Ban trade from any nation that does not impose similar draconian measures. Now we're talking. And it doesn't matter that it's way too late now. Let's do it anyway.

sfn42 3y ago
Totally agree, even with the last sentence. Except I'm a bit more pessimistic and don't expect any of this to ever happen. At least not until it's even more too late than it already is.

scottLobster 3y ago

It's not anywhere close to too late. I'm so sick and tired of this nihilistic doomerism because it turns out the world doesn't work like a freaking Superhero cartoon 2-parter where the bad guys only win once at the end of part 1, and then the heroes come back from momentary defeat and save the day in part 2, looking over a prosperous sunrise as the credits roll. Back in the middle ages they started cathedrals knowing that the would take multiple generations to complete, but we're so decadent as a society that we can't do the same for an arguably existential crisis. Yes, our children may have some challenges due to climate change, and perhaps an overall lower quality of life, and they don't deserve that and it sucks. How about we try and make sure that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren have what they need to turn the corner? If the best we can do in our lifetimes is slow the decay and limit the damage, that's still WAY better than nothing.

sfn42 3y ago
Your grandchildren (I won't have any) will probably struggle with things like water and food availability, possibly famine and I wouldn't be surprised if wars break out over these things. I also don't know if it will necessarily be grandchildren. It might very well be getting pretty bad by the time we're thinking about retirement. I'm hoping for the best and I hope I'm wrong but this is what it looks like to me, based on various reports and such that I see. The temperature graph is clearly exponential (at least for now) so the next 1.5 degrees are going to come much faster than the previous. I won't be surprised if we live to see 5, which is generally considered apocalyptic. And we haven't even started hitting the brakes, not even slightly. We're still producing more CO2 every single year than the previous. So yeah, I'm not optimistic. If you want to be that's fine and I'll happily support any proper action. But there's nothing I can do beyond live my best life while I can.