4 ms·

You keep asking what the alternatives to covering up imminent planetary destruction with a decades long coordinated campaign are... The alternative was to come

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.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Your insistent avoidance of the point* would be alarming and surprising if I expected better. But I've read your previous four comments, and I don't. * One more time, just in case it gets through: oil companies covered up their own research and deliberately set the entire planet on a course to self destruction for profit. This is profoundly evil, and if you don't see why there's not much I can do about that.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > oil companies covered up their own research and deliberately set the entire planet on a course to self destruction for profit. I heard you the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it more compelling, especially since you haven't responded to any of the points I brought up. > for profit Show us any non-profit communist economy with a better environmental track record
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > I heard you the first time. Hearing isn't the same as understanding. When someone responds with points that don't really connect to the original argument, it's sensible to repeat yourself in case the other person didn't understand. You really don't understand how systematically lying about fossil fuel's role in climate change for 50 years makes big oil *directly* responsible? Yikes dude. > Show us any non-profit communist economy with a better environmental track record The fact that they lied and committed unthinkable damage to us all for profit doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with communist economies. Your thinking is extraordinarily disjointed. It seems to be built of naughties AM radio talking points that don't all quite fit together. Such confused thought is a sadly predictable consequence of how big oil's decades of FUD has poisoned the discourse, and warped vulnerable minds. Buddy they put our species in massive harm's way, just so they could keep profits rolling in. If they weren't tight with our politicians and media they'd be in jail, or worse. They're the cause of unimaginable suffering already, with far more to come. Stop defending them, for the sake of literally all life on the planet (excepting maybe cockroaches and tardigrades). We have very little time to fight back and save ourselves the worst of it - about 2 years according to most every climate scientist.

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.

mandmandam 2y ago
Your insistent avoidance of the point* would be alarming and surprising if I expected better. But I've read your previous four comments, and I don't. * One more time, just in case it gets through: oil companies covered up their own research and deliberately set the entire planet on a course to self destruction for profit. This is profoundly evil, and if you don't see why there's not much I can do about that.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > oil companies covered up their own research and deliberately set the entire planet on a course to self destruction for profit. I heard you the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it more compelling, especially since you haven't responded to any of the points I brought up. > for profit Show us any non-profit communist economy with a better environmental track record
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > I heard you the first time. Hearing isn't the same as understanding. When someone responds with points that don't really connect to the original argument, it's sensible to repeat yourself in case the other person didn't understand. You really don't understand how systematically lying about fossil fuel's role in climate change for 50 years makes big oil *directly* responsible? Yikes dude. > Show us any non-profit communist economy with a better environmental track record The fact that they lied and committed unthinkable damage to us all for profit doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with communist economies. Your thinking is extraordinarily disjointed. It seems to be built of naughties AM radio talking points that don't all quite fit together. Such confused thought is a sadly predictable consequence of how big oil's decades of FUD has poisoned the discourse, and warped vulnerable minds. Buddy they put our species in massive harm's way, just so they could keep profits rolling in. If they weren't tight with our politicians and media they'd be in jail, or worse. They're the cause of unimaginable suffering already, with far more to come. Stop defending them, for the sake of literally all life on the planet (excepting maybe cockroaches and tardigrades). We have very little time to fight back and save ourselves the worst of it - about 2 years according to most every climate scientist.