4 ms·

Every, and I mean every aspect of the economy has "ties to oil". Oil companies sell to willing buyers, many of whom turn around and point the finger at the oil

Every, and I mean every aspect of the economy has "ties to oil". Oil companies sell to willing buyers, many of whom turn around and point the finger at the oil company. It's an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that never stops surprising me. I believe in climate change for the record, and do believe we need to switch to sustainable energy, but the attitude of a lot of climate activists really rubs me the wrong way sometimes.

arp242 2y ago
A lot of this seems to be like that Ralph kid from The Simpsons; "I'm helping!" Well-intentioned? Absolutely. Actually helpful? Meh. At one company I worked for someone suggested that we should all stop using metaphors linked to cars and internal combustion engines, to stop normalizing these things and help fight climate change. And look, I don't like this car-centric design; I don't even have a driving license. But how does this stop climate change? "I'm helping!" This was shot down pretty hard by the CEO and pretty much everyone else by the way.
- bluejekyll 2y ago
  Cars and the transportation sector are the primary consumers of oil. I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. We should be pointing out the car centric transportation systems we have and work to fix them. We shouldn’t be encouraging things like suburban sprawl that increases car dependence. Reduce car usage, and you will reduce oil consumption.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    Yes, that's true But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      Light-duty passenger vehicles are 15% of primary energy use. They are not a "tiny percentage", they are in fact the second-largest category (after manufacturing).
      - jjulius 2y ago
        15% might not technically be "tiny", sure, but that means there's a remaining 85% of energy being used in other areas, which is large enough to still supports GP's sentiment/point, IMO.
    - bluejekyll 2y ago
      Not sure where this idea comes from that cars are a “small percentage”, but here’s what I could find: “light-duty vehicles (cars, small trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles) 54.2%” of energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels
      - jjulius 2y ago
        > ... energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. Climate change isn't limited to one country. Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        The reason I highlighted the % of transportation that’s personal vehicles is to make it clear how much impact it has on the overall usage. 15% of total consumption is not a small percentage by any means, at least not by my estimation of small.
  - arp242 2y ago
    > I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop? Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
      - arp242 2y ago
        > Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.
  - therobots927 2y ago
    I couldn't agree more. We should have high speed rails interconnecting the top 30 most populated cities in the US. There's no reason why we couldn't still build something like that.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      We have something better than high speed rail connecting the 30 most populated cities - planes. We could save some on fuel by using rail, but the bigger advantage would be converting shorter trips (people AND freight) to rail.
      - therobots927 2y ago
        That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
        ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
        bombcar 2y ago
- function_seven 2y ago
  Your last sentence uses a metaphor that promotes firearms or weapons of war. You should consider steering clear of that ;)
- bombcar 2y ago
  Try removing baseball and sports analogies, and the entire C-suite would be crippled forever.
hannob 2y ago
Do you know that comic? https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ That's you.
- therobots927 2y ago
  Lol I've seen that before. Actually the iPhone example is a very clear case of hypocrisy. My only point is that I'm sure Microsoft has plenty of other clients whose profits are only 1 or 2 degrees removed from oil extraction. Any level of participation in capitalism is likely increasing oil extraction indirectly. It is the primary energy source of economic activity. Shutting down the oil companies will not speed up development of alternative energy sources (which we already have tech for, like nuclear, but the general public never got over their fear of it).
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  There needs to be a comic for dorks who hate oil just because, despite the fact that we desperately need it for modern life. By all means develop new energy if you can. But antagonizing oil companies for serving society the stuff they need is fucking stupid.

arp242 2y ago

A lot of this seems to be like that Ralph kid from The Simpsons; "I'm helping!" Well-intentioned? Absolutely. Actually helpful? Meh. At one company I worked for someone suggested that we should all stop using metaphors linked to cars and internal combustion engines, to stop normalizing these things and help fight climate change. And look, I don't like this car-centric design; I don't even have a driving license. But how does this stop climate change? "I'm helping!" This was shot down pretty hard by the CEO and pretty much everyone else by the way.

bluejekyll 2y ago
Cars and the transportation sector are the primary consumers of oil. I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. We should be pointing out the car centric transportation systems we have and work to fix them. We shouldn’t be encouraging things like suburban sprawl that increases car dependence. Reduce car usage, and you will reduce oil consumption.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  Yes, that's true But consumer vehicles are a tiny percentage of our actual overall consumption Yes we can and should reduce our usage here, but it needs to be in addition to other much bigger and important changes (which don't get talked about enough)
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    Light-duty passenger vehicles are 15% of primary energy use. They are not a "tiny percentage", they are in fact the second-largest category (after manufacturing).
    - jjulius 2y ago
      15% might not technically be "tiny", sure, but that means there's a remaining 85% of energy being used in other areas, which is large enough to still supports GP's sentiment/point, IMO.
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    Not sure where this idea comes from that cars are a “small percentage”, but here’s what I could find: “light-duty vehicles (cars, small trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles) 54.2%” of energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels
    - jjulius 2y ago
      > ... energy usage in the transportation sector of the US. Climate change isn't limited to one country. Additionally, you're also mis-quoting your source. According to your link, only "about 28% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2021 was for transporting people and goods from one place to another". The 54.2% you're citing is the percentage of light-duty vehicles that make up that 28% of energy use. In other words, only ~15% of energy usage in the US is from light-duty vehicles.
      - bluejekyll 2y ago
        The reason I highlighted the % of transportation that’s personal vehicles is to make it clear how much impact it has on the overall usage. 15% of total consumption is not a small percentage by any means, at least not by my estimation of small.
- arp242 2y ago
  > I think GP was saying, stop pointing at the oil company while you’re driving around in your car. No, because it's not about passenger cars. How do you think the supermarket gets stocked? And how do you think the food gets grown? And how did that laptop you're using go from raw materials to the laptop? Whether you like it or not, oil is needed for damn near everything. "Oil companies" really aren't the problem here; they're not forcing anyone to buy oil. The problem is the entire modern economy runs on oil in all sorts of ways, and actually changing that requires a much more wholistic solution than "zomg Microsoft does business with Big Oil!"
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. You logic is self defeating. Restricting supply of oil is exactly the right approach and will cause economy to move to alternatives
    - arp242 2y ago
      > Seems like anyone living in society has no right to criticise things society consumes. I never said that. I said the efforts were misdirected.
- therobots927 2y ago
  I couldn't agree more. We should have high speed rails interconnecting the top 30 most populated cities in the US. There's no reason why we couldn't still build something like that.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    We have something better than high speed rail connecting the 30 most populated cities - planes. We could save some on fuel by using rail, but the bigger advantage would be converting shorter trips (people AND freight) to rail.
    - therobots927 2y ago
      That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?
      - bluejekyll 2y ago
        Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
        ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
        bluejekyll 2y ago
        While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
        bombcar 2y ago
function_seven 2y ago
Your last sentence uses a metaphor that promotes firearms or weapons of war. You should consider steering clear of that ;)
bombcar 2y ago
Try removing baseball and sports analogies, and the entire C-suite would be crippled forever.

hannob 2y ago

Do you know that comic? https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ That's you.

therobots927 2y ago
Lol I've seen that before. Actually the iPhone example is a very clear case of hypocrisy. My only point is that I'm sure Microsoft has plenty of other clients whose profits are only 1 or 2 degrees removed from oil extraction. Any level of participation in capitalism is likely increasing oil extraction indirectly. It is the primary energy source of economic activity. Shutting down the oil companies will not speed up development of alternative energy sources (which we already have tech for, like nuclear, but the general public never got over their fear of it).
wakawaka28 2y ago
There needs to be a comic for dorks who hate oil just because, despite the fact that we desperately need it for modern life. By all means develop new energy if you can. But antagonizing oil companies for serving society the stuff they need is fucking stupid.