5 ms·

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the produc

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

mdgrech23 3y ago
I think is the uncomfortable truth is we're all to blame for a certain extent. People def hide evidence and acted to their own benefit but to a certain extent so many of us were known accomplices.
UncleMeat 3y ago
It is true that the people demanded the lifestyle provided by fossil fuel emissions. But corporations didn't just say "oh if you insist." When new policies and regulations are attempted that will not affect the lifestyle of the people but will eat into corporate profits, they fight tooth and nail. An honest corporation that was just acting to serve the needs of the people wouldn't do something like fight to reduce the exxon valdez spill fine by 100x or raise a fit when regulatory agencies mandate generation shifting.
- coding123 3y ago
  I think we've KNOWN what this shit does to the air and water for at least, what 40 years? At what point do we blame ourselves to increasing fossil fuel usage, even in the what, past 5 years?
  - notjoemama 3y ago
    All boats float: Let’s partner with oil companies to collectively solve carbon capture at planet scale? They get to keep functioning, citizens & government helps with subsidization and research programs. Put a time limit on progress and penalize the oil companies by making fines exponentially rise by time if possible and unmet. A select subcommittee can oversee the process and politicians can coordinate partnerships with other countries. You need BOTH the carrot AND the stick to get behaviors to change.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    I think that we can also reasonably blame people who use a disproportionate amount of electricity for their harm caused to the planet. I don't think that some sort of redistribution effort that accounts for past harm is impossible. But I also think that the effect of even a megamillionaire who takes a private jet everywhere is dwarfed by the effect of corporate leadership, lobbying, and legal teams who successfully undo regulation via the courts and legislatures so that they can make more profits.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > we blame ourselves So I buy shrimp that was grown locally. Then I read up that shrimps were transported to the other side of the world, peeled there, and shipped back, travelled 20,000 miles, before landong on my plate. I buy canned pairs, and turns out the same story. What am I suppose to do, starve? The capitalist machine prioritises fictitious resource of money, over real resource of oil. It wastes huge amount of enegy just to take advantage of a poor country's low wages. I drive an ebike to work. You can go vegan, quit heating your house, take cold showers, none of it will make any difference if the industry does not change it's practices.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      People forget that as consumers we arent free to be choosey. We only can chose among options the market has already made available to us, options that are presented in the first place because economies of scale have been developed to put them in front of every consumer. All of that cannot be unwound overnight or restarted with some alternative since it took so much iteration just to reach this point at all.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      Yep. Even if consumers want environmentally friendly products, this only achieves the advertisement of environmental friendliness unless there is associated regulation. Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly without actually changing the effect they have on the world. Consumers have minimal access to information to see through this effect. We need help from governments.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        > Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly For some reason, whenI lie to the insurance company, its fraud and I am a criminal. But when a company lies to me about my environmentally friendly product, it's just business.
trashtester 3y ago
If the world stopped consuming fossil fuels today, overpopulation would no longer be an issue in about a year or two. Because 90% of the population would die.
- 4ggr0 3y ago
  Well you don't have to stop in a matter of one day, because that's impossible and unrealistic anyways, but we could at least finally start with reducing our consumption, with the goal to land as close as possible to 0 as soon as possible. Then again, we missed the window to stop long ago. So why bother anyways, right?
  - trashtester 3y ago
    My main point is that demonizing the use of hydrocarbons is absurd. Our use of them is one of the main reasons we've been going from a world where most people was incredibly poor 200 years ago, to most of the world's population living in relative prosperity today (compared to 200 years ago). Now that we're developing alternative energy sources, we should start/continue to move away from fossil fuels, but if we try to do it too quickly, the price may be higher than the benefit.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  That seems to be an excuse that's been in use for decades. Meanwhile, we're just dragging our feet about stopping oil use and kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Ultimately, it's a very poor excuse to state that because we can't stop immediately, that we might as well continue digging as much oil as possible out of the ground for burning.
  - User23 3y ago
    There’s no credible path for reducing carbon emissions enough to reverse warming under current models that doesn’t involve gigadeaths.
    - 3y ago
bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
so you think its a collecrive decision made by all of us with full knowledge, and fossil fuel companies are just doing what the consumer wants? Then why do journalists investifating recycling sham, oil spills, etc. frequently end up dead or in prison?

mdgrech23 3y ago

I think is the uncomfortable truth is we're all to blame for a certain extent. People def hide evidence and acted to their own benefit but to a certain extent so many of us were known accomplices.

UncleMeat 3y ago

It is true that the people demanded the lifestyle provided by fossil fuel emissions. But corporations didn't just say "oh if you insist." When new policies and regulations are attempted that will not affect the lifestyle of the people but will eat into corporate profits, they fight tooth and nail. An honest corporation that was just acting to serve the needs of the people wouldn't do something like fight to reduce the exxon valdez spill fine by 100x or raise a fit when regulatory agencies mandate generation shifting.

coding123 3y ago
I think we've KNOWN what this shit does to the air and water for at least, what 40 years? At what point do we blame ourselves to increasing fossil fuel usage, even in the what, past 5 years?
- notjoemama 3y ago
  All boats float: Let’s partner with oil companies to collectively solve carbon capture at planet scale? They get to keep functioning, citizens & government helps with subsidization and research programs. Put a time limit on progress and penalize the oil companies by making fines exponentially rise by time if possible and unmet. A select subcommittee can oversee the process and politicians can coordinate partnerships with other countries. You need BOTH the carrot AND the stick to get behaviors to change.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  I think that we can also reasonably blame people who use a disproportionate amount of electricity for their harm caused to the planet. I don't think that some sort of redistribution effort that accounts for past harm is impossible. But I also think that the effect of even a megamillionaire who takes a private jet everywhere is dwarfed by the effect of corporate leadership, lobbying, and legal teams who successfully undo regulation via the courts and legislatures so that they can make more profits.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > we blame ourselves So I buy shrimp that was grown locally. Then I read up that shrimps were transported to the other side of the world, peeled there, and shipped back, travelled 20,000 miles, before landong on my plate. I buy canned pairs, and turns out the same story. What am I suppose to do, starve? The capitalist machine prioritises fictitious resource of money, over real resource of oil. It wastes huge amount of enegy just to take advantage of a poor country's low wages. I drive an ebike to work. You can go vegan, quit heating your house, take cold showers, none of it will make any difference if the industry does not change it's practices.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    People forget that as consumers we arent free to be choosey. We only can chose among options the market has already made available to us, options that are presented in the first place because economies of scale have been developed to put them in front of every consumer. All of that cannot be unwound overnight or restarted with some alternative since it took so much iteration just to reach this point at all.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    Yep. Even if consumers want environmentally friendly products, this only achieves the advertisement of environmental friendliness unless there is associated regulation. Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly without actually changing the effect they have on the world. Consumers have minimal access to information to see through this effect. We need help from governments.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly For some reason, whenI lie to the insurance company, its fraud and I am a criminal. But when a company lies to me about my environmentally friendly product, it's just business.

trashtester 3y ago

If the world stopped consuming fossil fuels today, overpopulation would no longer be an issue in about a year or two. Because 90% of the population would die.

4ggr0 3y ago
Well you don't have to stop in a matter of one day, because that's impossible and unrealistic anyways, but we could at least finally start with reducing our consumption, with the goal to land as close as possible to 0 as soon as possible. Then again, we missed the window to stop long ago. So why bother anyways, right?
- trashtester 3y ago
  My main point is that demonizing the use of hydrocarbons is absurd. Our use of them is one of the main reasons we've been going from a world where most people was incredibly poor 200 years ago, to most of the world's population living in relative prosperity today (compared to 200 years ago). Now that we're developing alternative energy sources, we should start/continue to move away from fossil fuels, but if we try to do it too quickly, the price may be higher than the benefit.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
That seems to be an excuse that's been in use for decades. Meanwhile, we're just dragging our feet about stopping oil use and kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Ultimately, it's a very poor excuse to state that because we can't stop immediately, that we might as well continue digging as much oil as possible out of the ground for burning.
- User23 3y ago
  There’s no credible path for reducing carbon emissions enough to reverse warming under current models that doesn’t involve gigadeaths.
  - 3y ago

bannedbybros 3y ago

[dead]

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

so you think its a collecrive decision made by all of us with full knowledge, and fossil fuel companies are just doing what the consumer wants? Then why do journalists investifating recycling sham, oil spills, etc. frequently end up dead or in prison?