4 ms·

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten p

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil. So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy. Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift. > So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage. > So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  So what do you think the answer is?
  - kbelder 3y ago
    Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.
- gochi 3y ago
  >And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
- palata 3y ago
  > And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple places where I would use the electric scooters or bikes (bikes are better) for relatively short distances (say less than 30min), and I was often not much slower than with a car.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.
    - jjav 3y ago
gochi 3y ago
Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't something worth really caring about in the long run, but something to be cognizant of when trying to shift public behaviour as they will undoubtedly be affected by the propaganda such powers will be obsessively pushing out. See also: tobacco companies spending several decades avoiding regulatory processes in advertising and convincing people they had no idea it was harmful nor that it was their fault for encouraging such consumption. Sounds a little familiar to several other industries.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  "the best time to regulate oil was 50 years ago. The second best time is now" I agree it'll take time to adapt, and there will be lots of clinging to old behaviours. But if we don't start soon, it'll just take longer.
  - gochi 3y ago
    Definitely in agreement, also a big proponent of gradually increasing taxes to incentivize certain spending to speed up that process. They're not popular but very effective. The good news is a lot of the positive change is already in progress. Bad news is the national goals for many countries are all still minimum 25 years away with people desperately clinging onto the hope that some magical technological breakthrough will happen that ensures we don't have to sacrifice anything currently.
- ip26 3y ago
  A survey sticks in my mind; it found that people were considerably more willing to pay higher taxes if they trusted everyone else would pay their share too. I think the same lesson can be applied here. Nobody wants to personally make big sacrifices while everyone else is living large, and I can’t blame them. If the producer has to deal with the problem and prices rise, no one can opt out of sharing the burden.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks". Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals more plastic? Regulation via higher taxes on petroleum-sourced products could work but it continues to be politically unfeasible.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  I agree with you on the supply/demand thing. Which is unfortunate because we need to stop using so much oil.
- kelnos 3y ago
  OPEC (et al.) won't let that happen. If demand drops, they'll artificially constrain supply in order to prop up the price. Of course, there could end up being a point in time when demand is so low that their whole thing just collapses.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    That's a good point, thanks. However, as demand drops so does the unity of such cartels. Less demand will likely destabilize those arrangements. In this case, raising prices to compensate for drop in demand is self defeating as it makes alternatives more cost effective. At some point there's a tipping point where volume is the only option (to make up for less demand). We'll see. It's complicated. And if you or I could predict the future...we'd not be on HN guessing :)
tiffanyg 3y ago
That's the great thing about 'game theory'. The rules can so easily be set up to funnel 'players' inexorably into "WarGames"-like resolutions. I.e., no matter how well the game is played, everyone loses (phrased rather more effectively in the movie, though). Realistically, though, the comparatively slow march - in "WarGames" terms, but not human lifespan terms - towards the conclusion for our species, clearly won't result in equal losing over given near-term timeframes. That is almost certainly one of the calculations* for some players who continue to push destructive patterns. Human activity (think economic) is incredibly interdependent as well as massively interwoven with an incredible array of aspects of our planet. There are always 'externalities' - i.e., the cost of goods and services probably ALWAYS (even in really 'primitive' economies) is missing a little bit in the accounting, so-to-speak. For example, when Virginia was fairly well-settled by Europeans, with many of the original inhabitants pushed out, tobacco was king. But growing tobacco is very hard on the land - tobacco is a crop that depletes soil very quickly. The solution, at the time, was to just develop a new plot after several years. Land was absurdly abundant from the perspective of the colonists of the time - and people like Lord Fairfax had tremendous tracts (his represented a substantial part of the current state). All of the decades and centuries that went into producing soil that led to great tobacco production was an externality. The environment, original inhabitants of all types (including ALL organisms), etc. contributed to ... or, perhaps better, SUBSIDIZED the tobacco production for those who moved in. And those who moved in generally never paid any of that back. It did cause problems for some, and people did switch crops grown over time ... were generally forced to adopt more sustainable practices ... (as well as ceasing, ultimately, other ways of externalizing costs generally FAR more reprehensible), but, the debt wasn't really repaid in just about any real way be those responsible. And, who actually, in some sense, effectively stole (beyond all of the other shades and types of stealing in the whole story, as we might frame it today) a massive amount of 5hit that it's not clear they had such a 'right to'. All of this can get quite complicated, and that itself illustrates some of the problem - there is no 'analytical solution'. There are always trade-offs of various types, and practical 'solutions' come together one way or another over time. But, a lot of current issues don't have the solution of 'just move to another plot', no matter what dimwits like Musk think or say. And, even those who have some conscience and conscientiousness are always faced with the sort of impossible problems of ethics you are touching on. But, the passage of time will always lead to practical solutions - one way or another. * Or part of a set of rationalizations, for those with a conscience of some sort - possibly even coupled w/ true delusions or grandeur, such as saving the species as a whole. Likely delusional in some heads, outright dishonesty in others.
praisewhitey 3y ago
>And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. Addressing this first makes the other issues manageable.
dzonga 3y ago
people need private transportation in the us. but surely people don't need big suv's. I like big cars too - but those things are unsustaianble. wish people would adopt the smaller cars found in asia, motorcycles, mopeds etc. i'm sure you can even have a 'jek' like vehicle which protects user from elements and can go up to 70mph on a motorcycle engine. but alas there's no drive
- greedo 3y ago
  We could implement a Federal tax based on gross vehicle weight...

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy. Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift. > So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage. > So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
So what do you think the answer is?
- kbelder 3y ago
  Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.
gochi 3y ago
>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
palata 3y ago
> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple places where I would use the electric scooters or bikes (bikes are better) for relatively short distances (say less than 30min), and I was often not much slower than with a car.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.
  - jjav 3y ago

gochi 3y ago

Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't something worth really caring about in the long run, but something to be cognizant of when trying to shift public behaviour as they will undoubtedly be affected by the propaganda such powers will be obsessively pushing out. See also: tobacco companies spending several decades avoiding regulatory processes in advertising and convincing people they had no idea it was harmful nor that it was their fault for encouraging such consumption. Sounds a little familiar to several other industries.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
"the best time to regulate oil was 50 years ago. The second best time is now" I agree it'll take time to adapt, and there will be lots of clinging to old behaviours. But if we don't start soon, it'll just take longer.
- gochi 3y ago
  Definitely in agreement, also a big proponent of gradually increasing taxes to incentivize certain spending to speed up that process. They're not popular but very effective. The good news is a lot of the positive change is already in progress. Bad news is the national goals for many countries are all still minimum 25 years away with people desperately clinging onto the hope that some magical technological breakthrough will happen that ensures we don't have to sacrifice anything currently.
ip26 3y ago
A survey sticks in my mind; it found that people were considerably more willing to pay higher taxes if they trusted everyone else would pay their share too. I think the same lesson can be applied here. Nobody wants to personally make big sacrifices while everyone else is living large, and I can’t blame them. If the producer has to deal with the problem and prices rise, no one can opt out of sharing the burden.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks". Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals more plastic? Regulation via higher taxes on petroleum-sourced products could work but it continues to be politically unfeasible.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
I agree with you on the supply/demand thing. Which is unfortunate because we need to stop using so much oil.
kelnos 3y ago
OPEC (et al.) won't let that happen. If demand drops, they'll artificially constrain supply in order to prop up the price. Of course, there could end up being a point in time when demand is so low that their whole thing just collapses.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  That's a good point, thanks. However, as demand drops so does the unity of such cartels. Less demand will likely destabilize those arrangements. In this case, raising prices to compensate for drop in demand is self defeating as it makes alternatives more cost effective. At some point there's a tipping point where volume is the only option (to make up for less demand). We'll see. It's complicated. And if you or I could predict the future...we'd not be on HN guessing :)

tiffanyg 3y ago

That's the great thing about 'game theory'. The rules can so easily be set up to funnel 'players' inexorably into "WarGames"-like resolutions. I.e., no matter how well the game is played, everyone loses (phrased rather more effectively in the movie, though). Realistically, though, the comparatively slow march - in "WarGames" terms, but not human lifespan terms - towards the conclusion for our species, clearly won't result in equal losing over given near-term timeframes. That is almost certainly one of the calculations* for some players who continue to push destructive patterns. Human activity (think economic) is incredibly interdependent as well as massively interwoven with an incredible array of aspects of our planet. There are always 'externalities' - i.e., the cost of goods and services probably ALWAYS (even in really 'primitive' economies) is missing a little bit in the accounting, so-to-speak. For example, when Virginia was fairly well-settled by Europeans, with many of the original inhabitants pushed out, tobacco was king. But growing tobacco is very hard on the land - tobacco is a crop that depletes soil very quickly. The solution, at the time, was to just develop a new plot after several years. Land was absurdly abundant from the perspective of the colonists of the time - and people like Lord Fairfax had tremendous tracts (his represented a substantial part of the current state). All of the decades and centuries that went into producing soil that led to great tobacco production was an externality. The environment, original inhabitants of all types (including ALL organisms), etc. contributed to ... or, perhaps better, SUBSIDIZED the tobacco production for those who moved in. And those who moved in generally never paid any of that back. It did cause problems for some, and people did switch crops grown over time ... were generally forced to adopt more sustainable practices ... (as well as ceasing, ultimately, other ways of externalizing costs generally FAR more reprehensible), but, the debt wasn't really repaid in just about any real way be those responsible. And, who actually, in some sense, effectively stole (beyond all of the other shades and types of stealing in the whole story, as we might frame it today) a massive amount of 5hit that it's not clear they had such a 'right to'. All of this can get quite complicated, and that itself illustrates some of the problem - there is no 'analytical solution'. There are always trade-offs of various types, and practical 'solutions' come together one way or another over time. But, a lot of current issues don't have the solution of 'just move to another plot', no matter what dimwits like Musk think or say. And, even those who have some conscience and conscientiousness are always faced with the sort of impossible problems of ethics you are touching on. But, the passage of time will always lead to practical solutions - one way or another. * Or part of a set of rationalizations, for those with a conscience of some sort - possibly even coupled w/ true delusions or grandeur, such as saving the species as a whole. Likely delusional in some heads, outright dishonesty in others.

praisewhitey 3y ago

>And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. Addressing this first makes the other issues manageable.

dzonga 3y ago

people need private transportation in the us. but surely people don't need big suv's. I like big cars too - but those things are unsustaianble. wish people would adopt the smaller cars found in asia, motorcycles, mopeds etc. i'm sure you can even have a 'jek' like vehicle which protects user from elements and can go up to 70mph on a motorcycle engine. but alas there's no drive

greedo 3y ago
We could implement a Federal tax based on gross vehicle weight...