4 ms·

I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest quest

I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained?

richbell 3y ago
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your neighborhood still only has 50mbps after decades and millions in grants because people still need Internet access.
- bad_user 3y ago
  I have a 1 Gbps internet connection at home, for which I'm paying $10 per month. I live in Romania. The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
  - richbell 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment. Comcast is a US company; the fact you have 1Gbps Internet in Romania and yet many parts of the US don't (or don't for a reasonable price) just illustrates my point.
awestroke 3y ago
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms That's a huge understatement. They have actively sabotaged green initiatives all along. They have stopped green policies, and green policies is and has always been the ONLY way forward, you can't put shit like this on individuals.
- blacklion 3y ago
  Sometimes I think, that green policies are not stopped by Big Oil but undermined. You see, in many countries green policies are tied with rejection of nuclear power plants, which is much more effective and sustainable than all solar & wind sources. When I've lived in Russia, I've donated to Green Peace and WWF, because they helps a lot to save Nature Reserves, oppose predatory laws which allows to exploit Protected Areas without any ecological control, they sued factories which dump industrial waste into soil and water without any treatment, etc. Now I'm living in Europe and I don't want to give money to Green Peace, because their agenda is not about nature reserves and industrial waste treatment, but, first, anti-nuclear-plant and then anti-travel, antu-car-ownership, etc.
  - klabb3 3y ago
    > because their agenda is not about nature reserves and factory waste treatment, but, first, anti-nuclear-plant and then anti-travel, antu-car-ownership, etc. All of these things are indeed stupid imo, typical EU green party style navel gazing. The one I kind of agree with is anti-car-ownership, but it’s an extremely poor treatment of the symptom, where the decease is poor (and in many cases irreversible) city planning and public services. Excessive car ownership in urban areas is a solved problem in many parts of the world (where a car is less convenient than alternatives for personal travel for small families/households). It’s not rocket science.
    - maccard 3y ago
      > It’s not rocket science. But it's unpopular and expensive. Here in the UK, we have the minister for transport [0] jumping on the bandwagon of "walkable cities are a ploy for the government to control which shops you go to". In France, there were literal riots when fuel taxes were set to be raised. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mark-harper-government-english-conservative-party-manchester-b2422383.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mark-harper-government...
OmarShehata 3y ago
Some people really do follow this line of thinking all the way down to "the industrial revolution was therefore bad for humanity", but I think most people would agree that not true, so these simple narratives must be incomplete Jason Crawford has a really good analysis of this sentiment, trying to understand why people think this, on his Roots of Progress blog: https://rootsofprogress.org/the-spiritual-benefits-of-material-progress https://rootsofprogress.org/the-spiritual-benefits-of-materi...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cm2012 3y ago
Also oil is insanely cleaner to burn than coal or wood
- lostlogin 3y ago
  I’m sure it is. But it starts to get murkier when I consider that the wood came from a tree 200m up the road, but the oil is from the Middle East, processed somewhere and delivered to me 10,000km away.
  - cm2012 3y ago
    The United States is now the largest producer of oil in the world, if that helps.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      I’m in New Zealand, we should be using 100% renewables as we are just too far away.
voidmain0001 3y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-nigeria-intl-cmd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-niger... Couldn’t the oil companies have included environmental responsibility in their work and not just have focused on profits?
Timshel 3y ago
Lol nice euphemism "delayed some reforms". As of today I'll argue that no true reform has been done, externalities of burning fossil fuel are absolutely not taken into account. And it's been delayed by something like half a century ? (cf https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994)
Grimblewald 3y ago
> "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms Is the understatement of the century. They knew about global warming from internal research close to a decade before public science was able to gather enough data to raise alarm bells. Over that decade big oil spent time not researching greener alternatives or options for improving things but rather prepared for the globe spanning disinformation campaign you've so lightly referred to as delaying some reforms. Big oil is a major reason for why 8 billion people are being fed, clothed, and entertained unsustainably. We don't need oranges avaliable year round. We don't need North Sea salmon in pacific Islands. We especially don't need to import so much most is thrown out as waste. There is a lot wrong with the world right now, and population management needs to be part of the conversation but we are not yet at a point where the volume of people is simply unsustainable. We are unlikely to reach that point as well, since population growth seems to slow naturally as populations hit carrying capacity.
- _cenw 3y ago
  By the late 70s wasn't a secret, it's more that nobody would listen over the sound of oil prices crashing half a decade later. Exxon even briefly had a substantial research division into renewables. In the 80s! YouTube channel Climate Town has a very good summary of history of early climate chance action, The Time America Almost Stopped Climate Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MondapIjAAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MondapIjAAM
UncleMeat 3y ago
Fossil fuels have enabled great things. Fossil fuel companies also directly interfere with policy and regulation that will enable people to have a similar quality of life while using considerably more non-emitting power. That's horrible.
politelemon 3y ago
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but This sentence fragment greatly understates the impact they have had. It is clear that you consider it to be a narrative and are deliberately deflecting attention elsewhere. Both are valid statements, it is not a binary situation. It is not one over the other, and deliberately polarising situations does not help anyone. It only serves to further hinder the situation.
_cenw 3y ago
Delayed. By about 40 years.
Geee 3y ago
Yes, this narrative should be stopped. Nothing is getting destroyed.
- abenga 3y ago
  Let's tell the people who live in the Niger Delta this.
zen928 3y ago
Is this where allowing this type of rhetoric on HN ultimately evolves to, dipshit climate change deniers from undeveloped third world countries spouting brainless propoganda counterpoints to "the narrative" that using oil on the scale that we do harms the environment? extremely disappointing

richbell 3y ago

> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your neighborhood still only has 50mbps after decades and millions in grants because people still need Internet access.

bad_user 3y ago
I have a 1 Gbps internet connection at home, for which I'm paying $10 per month. I live in Romania. The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
- richbell 3y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment. Comcast is a US company; the fact you have 1Gbps Internet in Romania and yet many parts of the US don't (or don't for a reasonable price) just illustrates my point.

awestroke 3y ago

> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms That's a huge understatement. They have actively sabotaged green initiatives all along. They have stopped green policies, and green policies is and has always been the ONLY way forward, you can't put shit like this on individuals.

blacklion 3y ago
Sometimes I think, that green policies are not stopped by Big Oil but undermined. You see, in many countries green policies are tied with rejection of nuclear power plants, which is much more effective and sustainable than all solar & wind sources. When I've lived in Russia, I've donated to Green Peace and WWF, because they helps a lot to save Nature Reserves, oppose predatory laws which allows to exploit Protected Areas without any ecological control, they sued factories which dump industrial waste into soil and water without any treatment, etc. Now I'm living in Europe and I don't want to give money to Green Peace, because their agenda is not about nature reserves and industrial waste treatment, but, first, anti-nuclear-plant and then anti-travel, antu-car-ownership, etc.
- klabb3 3y ago
  > because their agenda is not about nature reserves and factory waste treatment, but, first, anti-nuclear-plant and then anti-travel, antu-car-ownership, etc. All of these things are indeed stupid imo, typical EU green party style navel gazing. The one I kind of agree with is anti-car-ownership, but it’s an extremely poor treatment of the symptom, where the decease is poor (and in many cases irreversible) city planning and public services. Excessive car ownership in urban areas is a solved problem in many parts of the world (where a car is less convenient than alternatives for personal travel for small families/households). It’s not rocket science.
  - maccard 3y ago
    > It’s not rocket science. But it's unpopular and expensive. Here in the UK, we have the minister for transport [0] jumping on the bandwagon of "walkable cities are a ploy for the government to control which shops you go to". In France, there were literal riots when fuel taxes were set to be raised. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mark-harper-government-english-conservative-party-manchester-b2422383.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mark-harper-government...

OmarShehata 3y ago

Some people really do follow this line of thinking all the way down to "the industrial revolution was therefore bad for humanity", but I think most people would agree that not true, so these simple narratives must be incomplete Jason Crawford has a really good analysis of this sentiment, trying to understand why people think this, on his Roots of Progress blog: https://rootsofprogress.org/the-spiritual-benefits-of-material-progress https://rootsofprogress.org/the-spiritual-benefits-of-materi...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cm2012 3y ago

Also oil is insanely cleaner to burn than coal or wood

lostlogin 3y ago
I’m sure it is. But it starts to get murkier when I consider that the wood came from a tree 200m up the road, but the oil is from the Middle East, processed somewhere and delivered to me 10,000km away.
- cm2012 3y ago
  The United States is now the largest producer of oil in the world, if that helps.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    I’m in New Zealand, we should be using 100% renewables as we are just too far away.

voidmain0001 3y ago

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-nigeria-intl-cmd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-niger... Couldn’t the oil companies have included environmental responsibility in their work and not just have focused on profits?

Timshel 3y ago

Lol nice euphemism "delayed some reforms". As of today I'll argue that no true reform has been done, externalities of burning fossil fuel are absolutely not taken into account. And it's been delayed by something like half a century ? (cf https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994)

Grimblewald 3y ago

> "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms Is the understatement of the century. They knew about global warming from internal research close to a decade before public science was able to gather enough data to raise alarm bells. Over that decade big oil spent time not researching greener alternatives or options for improving things but rather prepared for the globe spanning disinformation campaign you've so lightly referred to as delaying some reforms. Big oil is a major reason for why 8 billion people are being fed, clothed, and entertained unsustainably. We don't need oranges avaliable year round. We don't need North Sea salmon in pacific Islands. We especially don't need to import so much most is thrown out as waste. There is a lot wrong with the world right now, and population management needs to be part of the conversation but we are not yet at a point where the volume of people is simply unsustainable. We are unlikely to reach that point as well, since population growth seems to slow naturally as populations hit carrying capacity.

_cenw 3y ago
By the late 70s wasn't a secret, it's more that nobody would listen over the sound of oil prices crashing half a decade later. Exxon even briefly had a substantial research division into renewables. In the 80s! YouTube channel Climate Town has a very good summary of history of early climate chance action, The Time America Almost Stopped Climate Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MondapIjAAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MondapIjAAM

UncleMeat 3y ago

Fossil fuels have enabled great things. Fossil fuel companies also directly interfere with policy and regulation that will enable people to have a similar quality of life while using considerably more non-emitting power. That's horrible.

politelemon 3y ago

> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but This sentence fragment greatly understates the impact they have had. It is clear that you consider it to be a narrative and are deliberately deflecting attention elsewhere. Both are valid statements, it is not a binary situation. It is not one over the other, and deliberately polarising situations does not help anyone. It only serves to further hinder the situation.

_cenw 3y ago

Delayed. By about 40 years.

Geee 3y ago

Yes, this narrative should be stopped. Nothing is getting destroyed.

abenga 3y ago
Let's tell the people who live in the Niger Delta this.

zen928 3y ago

Is this where allowing this type of rhetoric on HN ultimately evolves to, dipshit climate change deniers from undeveloped third world countries spouting brainless propoganda counterpoints to "the narrative" that using oil on the scale that we do harms the environment? extremely disappointing