4 ms·

> 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 co

> 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?
- defrost 2y ago
  There's a false dilemma if ever there was one. A better question would be if they had remained at the scale they were at in the 60's (or 70's) while their parent energy companies transitioned into better alternative energy technology earlier one. The option was there, the dangers were known and the choice was made by executives to FUD their way out of any action other than funding thinks to counter the early climate change findings, to actively work against better public transport in the US, to promote larger and larger vehicles, etc. Like building roads where traffic expands to fill capacity, society expands to consume available energy .. and those profiting from fossil fuel extraction expanded production rather than pivot towards better sources. That's pure unfettered capitalism for you - dumb as an ox and making poor decisions at scale for the masses much of the time.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    What alternatives were there? > That's pure unfettered capitalism for you - dumb as an ox and making poor decisions at scale for the masses much of the time. What do you think the USSR ran on?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      You keep asking what the alternatives to covering up imminent planetary destruction with a decades long coordinated campaign are... The alternative was to come out and say, this is what we found, let's put money into alternatives - solar, hydro, nuclear etc. How is that not incredibly obvious? And why is your immediate reaction to being informed of oil companies global atrocity scale actions to defend them, as if you couldn't possibly imagine a single thing they might have done differently? > What do you think the USSR ran on? Are you one of those binary thinkers, who think the only alternative to unfettered predatory crony criminal capitalism is full on gulag-style communism? How fascinating.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Remember, we're talking the 1960s. Solar panel technology was not very good. Hydro is nice, but it is economically destructive (which is why in the PNW the dams are being removed). There is also not remotely enough hydro power even if all the rivers were dammed. Nuclear power was not stopped by oil companies, it was stopped by activists. The Haber-Bosch process converts air to fertilizer, and results in about 1% of global emissions. Eliminating that would quickly cut the population by several billions. Removing oil (and coal) from the economy in 1960 would have necessitated the population being reduced to 1800 levels. Such a decline would inevitably result in absolutely massive wars, and we all know how environmentally destructive wars are. As for government run agriculture, the USSR is hardly the only example of its massive failure. Government run agriculture always results in famine. The idea that our oil reliance is all because of evil oil companies is simply absurd. P.S. I remember, back in the 1970s oil crisis, there was a lot of talk about the oil companies buying up patents for 200mpg carburetors, and keeping them off the market. I ask my dad about that (career military) and he bust out laughing. He said the military runs on oil (recall my remarks about crippling enemy oil being a goal of all the major combatants). There was no way in hell the military would eschew use of 200mpg patents regardless of any silly patent laws.

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?

defrost 2y ago
There's a false dilemma if ever there was one. A better question would be if they had remained at the scale they were at in the 60's (or 70's) while their parent energy companies transitioned into better alternative energy technology earlier one. The option was there, the dangers were known and the choice was made by executives to FUD their way out of any action other than funding thinks to counter the early climate change findings, to actively work against better public transport in the US, to promote larger and larger vehicles, etc. Like building roads where traffic expands to fill capacity, society expands to consume available energy .. and those profiting from fossil fuel extraction expanded production rather than pivot towards better sources. That's pure unfettered capitalism for you - dumb as an ox and making poor decisions at scale for the masses much of the time.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  What alternatives were there? > That's pure unfettered capitalism for you - dumb as an ox and making poor decisions at scale for the masses much of the time. What do you think the USSR ran on?
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    You keep asking what the alternatives to covering up imminent planetary destruction with a decades long coordinated campaign are... The alternative was to come out and say, this is what we found, let's put money into alternatives - solar, hydro, nuclear etc. How is that not incredibly obvious? And why is your immediate reaction to being informed of oil companies global atrocity scale actions to defend them, as if you couldn't possibly imagine a single thing they might have done differently? > What do you think the USSR ran on? Are you one of those binary thinkers, who think the only alternative to unfettered predatory crony criminal capitalism is full on gulag-style communism? How fascinating.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Remember, we're talking the 1960s. Solar panel technology was not very good. Hydro is nice, but it is economically destructive (which is why in the PNW the dams are being removed). There is also not remotely enough hydro power even if all the rivers were dammed. Nuclear power was not stopped by oil companies, it was stopped by activists. The Haber-Bosch process converts air to fertilizer, and results in about 1% of global emissions. Eliminating that would quickly cut the population by several billions. Removing oil (and coal) from the economy in 1960 would have necessitated the population being reduced to 1800 levels. Such a decline would inevitably result in absolutely massive wars, and we all know how environmentally destructive wars are. As for government run agriculture, the USSR is hardly the only example of its massive failure. Government run agriculture always results in famine. The idea that our oil reliance is all because of evil oil companies is simply absurd. P.S. I remember, back in the 1970s oil crisis, there was a lot of talk about the oil companies buying up patents for 200mpg carburetors, and keeping them off the market. I ask my dad about that (career military) and he bust out laughing. He said the military runs on oil (recall my remarks about crippling enemy oil being a goal of all the major combatants). There was no way in hell the military would eschew use of 200mpg patents regardless of any silly patent laws.