4 ms·

> It explains why the public gets angry at climate protestors instead of the oil executives who've ruined their future. The public tend to get annoyed at these

by vyvyy 2y ago

> It explains why the public gets angry at climate protestors instead of the oil executives who've ruined their future. The public tend to get annoyed at these protestors because their protests are ineffective and disrupt everyday working people. If the protestors brought their protests to the oil executives, I expect they'd be much more widely accepted. > It explains how university students have somehow wound up as the villains in so many people's eyes, instead of the governments sponsoring and committing genocide. If this is referring to Gaza, not everyone holds the view that Israel is committing genocide. Many see it as a justified response to a large-scale terrorist attack by Hamas. And either way, the students' protests aren't effective either. It does nothing to affect the actual conflict, just annoys students who are there to study.

WalterBright 2y ago
> It explains why the public gets angry at climate protestors instead of the oil executives who've ruined their future. Oil companies aren't the cause of climate change. The people who burn the oil are. P.S. Oil replaced the slaughter of the whales and saved them from extinction. Oil also produces much less pollution than coal, which oil replaced. Coal saved the forests from extinction.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  And coal/oil marked (mostly) the end of slavery and other forms of indentured labour. But Jevons' paradox means that the efficiency of oil leads to its consumption at huge levels. You want the strength of 150 horses just to go to the shop and back? No problem, Average Guy, just pop the key in and off you go. Now imagine how rich you'd have to be in 1800 to have one hundred and fifty horses at your disposal. The expense and labour involved in keeping them fed and watered, and the labourers themselves fed and watered. And that's just a small truck. For a passenger airliner, you're looking at eight hundred horses per passenger that's typical of a long-haul jet aircraft.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    What do you prefer? Short lives, famines, etc.? That was ended by the industrial revolution. I suggest touring Washington's Mt Vernon estate. He was probably the richest man in America at the time. I wouldn't trade my current standard of living for his.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      I'd prefer a culture with a little self-discipline and self-control. Not using 150 horses where five, or none, will do. Let's use the oil, sure, but treat it like we need it to last 200 years, not 20. If you take an audit view, you can see that some of what we burn - perhaps a third - is essential to modern quality of life. Making sure people have access to enough nutritious food, and access to semiconductors, satellites and antibiotics. Very hard to replace this stuff, and we're screwed if and when it runs out. Another third or so is used valuably but inefficiently. Transport and food choices where you'd need to get the job done, but could get it done on a lot less. Heating/cooling large and poorly insulated buildings. People with desk jobs driving trucks for a commute which a hatchback or light motorcycle could do. Beef, so much beef. Can't substitute any of these to zero, but some pretty significant reductions are possible with little more than self-discipline. And then there's a third that's just sheer waste. The majority of long-haul flights taken add a negligible amount to quality of life or human experience relative to what they burn. Basically everything the super-rich does, their lives are no happier, wiser, longer or better than the just plain rich (or even the upper reaches of the middle-class, in well-off social democratic countries), but their consumption footprints are proportionally huge.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Oil companies knew for a fact, from their own research in the 70's, that they were putting the planet on a course to irreversible massive damage. Their response was to hush that up and initiate a massive Big Tobacco style disinformation campaign. They are the cause, root and stem. So whether you're aware of it or not, you're blaming the victim, and covering for an unfathomably evil global-scale crime.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    People who drive cars are not victims. As for oil company research, anybody could do research. You can also blame the activists for preventing nuclear power generation.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > People who drive cars are not victims. Sure they are. They're victims of the entities which killed public transport so they could profit more, and the oil companies who lied and funded disinformation about climate change. > As for oil company research, anybody could do research. Many have? Even long before the 70s. That does not absolve oil companies of their crimes. They've spent untold millions promoting doubt for 50+ years, lobbied politicians for subsidies, infiltrated regulatory agencies, targeted activists, smeared alternatives, etc etc, all in full knowledge that they were putting us on a catastrophic course. > You can also blame the activists for preventing nuclear power generation. "Activists" are not a monolithic entity. Nuclear isn't perfect either - there's only so much fuel in the world. Also, I would instantly bet you my life savings that Big Oil money promoted the anti-nuclear campaign. I think you need to think much, much deeper on this.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        And if the oil companies shut down in 1960, what would our economy have run on? In WW2, the main target of the USAF bombing campaign was the Reich's fuel supply. They were successful, the German war machine ground to a halt from fuel shortages. They did use a lot of horses, but there weren't remotely enough. The German U-Boot campaign was aimed at cutting Britain off from fuel. What were the alternatives?
- nickpp 2y ago
  > Oil companies aren't the cause of climate change. The people who burn the oil are. Also the people who fought tooth and nail against transitioning to oil's natural successor: nuclear power.
magicalist 2y ago
> It does nothing to affect the actual conflict, just annoys students who are there to study. I somewhat agree but there is power in positioning the Overton window even if ultimately you do a poor job of bringing people to your side within it. If you don't have billionaires bankrolling a 24 hour network and can set the editorial themes for you, you have to take other paths. I also think when people say this, they forget that "if you stuck to the proper channels I still wouldn't care about your issue but I would be less annoyed" isn't exactly a sales pitch.
throwaway22032 2y ago
N=1, but I disagree with these protests simply because I disagree with their aims. I'm not religious. If I had to live in a world with either Israel or Palestine in it, which seems to be the implicit choice Hamas are presenting, I'd choose Israel. I think that people of the Jewish faith are on the whole far more tolerant and accepting than followers of Islam are. Even the militants are more reasonable. Protest groups with titles like "Queers for Palestine" I find to be not villanous but rather simply misguided. Of course I'm going to distrust someone who seems to be borderline suicidal, the normal incentives I assume of my fellow man don't apply to them.

by vyvyy 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

> It explains why the public gets angry at climate protestors instead of the oil executives who've ruined their future. Oil companies aren't the cause of climate change. The people who burn the oil are. P.S. Oil replaced the slaughter of the whales and saved them from extinction. Oil also produces much less pollution than coal, which oil replaced. Coal saved the forests from extinction.

Earw0rm 2y ago
And coal/oil marked (mostly) the end of slavery and other forms of indentured labour. But Jevons' paradox means that the efficiency of oil leads to its consumption at huge levels. You want the strength of 150 horses just to go to the shop and back? No problem, Average Guy, just pop the key in and off you go. Now imagine how rich you'd have to be in 1800 to have one hundred and fifty horses at your disposal. The expense and labour involved in keeping them fed and watered, and the labourers themselves fed and watered. And that's just a small truck. For a passenger airliner, you're looking at eight hundred horses per passenger that's typical of a long-haul jet aircraft.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  What do you prefer? Short lives, famines, etc.? That was ended by the industrial revolution. I suggest touring Washington's Mt Vernon estate. He was probably the richest man in America at the time. I wouldn't trade my current standard of living for his.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    I'd prefer a culture with a little self-discipline and self-control. Not using 150 horses where five, or none, will do. Let's use the oil, sure, but treat it like we need it to last 200 years, not 20. If you take an audit view, you can see that some of what we burn - perhaps a third - is essential to modern quality of life. Making sure people have access to enough nutritious food, and access to semiconductors, satellites and antibiotics. Very hard to replace this stuff, and we're screwed if and when it runs out. Another third or so is used valuably but inefficiently. Transport and food choices where you'd need to get the job done, but could get it done on a lot less. Heating/cooling large and poorly insulated buildings. People with desk jobs driving trucks for a commute which a hatchback or light motorcycle could do. Beef, so much beef. Can't substitute any of these to zero, but some pretty significant reductions are possible with little more than self-discipline. And then there's a third that's just sheer waste. The majority of long-haul flights taken add a negligible amount to quality of life or human experience relative to what they burn. Basically everything the super-rich does, their lives are no happier, wiser, longer or better than the just plain rich (or even the upper reaches of the middle-class, in well-off social democratic countries), but their consumption footprints are proportionally huge.
mandmandam 2y ago
Oil companies knew for a fact, from their own research in the 70's, that they were putting the planet on a course to irreversible massive damage. Their response was to hush that up and initiate a massive Big Tobacco style disinformation campaign. They are the cause, root and stem. So whether you're aware of it or not, you're blaming the victim, and covering for an unfathomably evil global-scale crime.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  People who drive cars are not victims. As for oil company research, anybody could do research. You can also blame the activists for preventing nuclear power generation.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > People who drive cars are not victims. Sure they are. They're victims of the entities which killed public transport so they could profit more, and the oil companies who lied and funded disinformation about climate change. > As for oil company research, anybody could do research. Many have? Even long before the 70s. That does not absolve oil companies of their crimes. They've spent untold millions promoting doubt for 50+ years, lobbied politicians for subsidies, infiltrated regulatory agencies, targeted activists, smeared alternatives, etc etc, all in full knowledge that they were putting us on a catastrophic course. > You can also blame the activists for preventing nuclear power generation. "Activists" are not a monolithic entity. Nuclear isn't perfect either - there's only so much fuel in the world. Also, I would instantly bet you my life savings that Big Oil money promoted the anti-nuclear campaign. I think you need to think much, much deeper on this.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      And if the oil companies shut down in 1960, what would our economy have run on? In WW2, the main target of the USAF bombing campaign was the Reich's fuel supply. They were successful, the German war machine ground to a halt from fuel shortages. They did use a lot of horses, but there weren't remotely enough. The German U-Boot campaign was aimed at cutting Britain off from fuel. What were the alternatives?
nickpp 2y ago
> Oil companies aren't the cause of climate change. The people who burn the oil are. Also the people who fought tooth and nail against transitioning to oil's natural successor: nuclear power.

magicalist 2y ago

> It does nothing to affect the actual conflict, just annoys students who are there to study. I somewhat agree but there is power in positioning the Overton window even if ultimately you do a poor job of bringing people to your side within it. If you don't have billionaires bankrolling a 24 hour network and can set the editorial themes for you, you have to take other paths. I also think when people say this, they forget that "if you stuck to the proper channels I still wouldn't care about your issue but I would be less annoyed" isn't exactly a sales pitch.

throwaway22032 2y ago

N=1, but I disagree with these protests simply because I disagree with their aims. I'm not religious. If I had to live in a world with either Israel or Palestine in it, which seems to be the implicit choice Hamas are presenting, I'd choose Israel. I think that people of the Jewish faith are on the whole far more tolerant and accepting than followers of Islam are. Even the militants are more reasonable. Protest groups with titles like "Queers for Palestine" I find to be not villanous but rather simply misguided. Of course I'm going to distrust someone who seems to be borderline suicidal, the normal incentives I assume of my fellow man don't apply to them.