4 ms·

I never understood this. The companies sold you fossil fuel, you burnt it and got benefits out of it: transportation, energy, heating, constructions, fertilizer

I never understood this. The companies sold you fossil fuel, you burnt it and got benefits out of it: transportation, energy, heating, constructions, fertilizers and food, etc. You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption while you keep all the generated benefits?

aaronbrethorst 8mo ago
Neat, I’ve never seen a fossil fuel company exec on hacker news before. Welcome!
- aoeusnth1 8mo ago
  I'm an environmentalist and I agree with this framing. The solution is going to be painful and must increase prices on products and services that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest solution for. If you're not willing to personally sacrifice anything to reduce fossil fuel consumption you can see why carbon taxes are not popular, right? France's protests against them, for example, are a good example of a populist reaction against attempts to regulate the economy to have less emissions.
thesuitonym 8mo ago
The amount of fossil fuels that a working class individual burns are a rounding error compared to what big companies burn. How many private jets are in the air right now? Even if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced, run your home HVAC at max, and buy gasoline just to burn in your back yard, you will never measure up. It's like saying we need to dry the oceans, so you should stop peeing in it.
- throw310822 8mo ago
  > if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced Sorry, but how was that truck produced? Where did the energy to make it come from? How was your home built, where did the energy come from? Where did the materials come from? How did the workers come to the job? What did they eat, and what do you eat? Do you go to an office? How was it built? How do you and your colleagues get there? Do your children go to school? Do you go to hospitals when you're sick? Etc.
- 2III7 8mo ago
  And who are the customers of big companies driving the demand? Regular people or other companies who also produce for those people.
EGreg 8mo ago
No, what we wanted for decades is for cars to shift to the free market of electric energy, just like every one of our other appliances have for decades. Electricity is a free market - can be generated by hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, even nuclear. If tomorrow they invent clean fusion power then electric cars would be able to benefit. The cars being locked into fossil fuels is the result of fossil fuel subsidies from the government. Otherwise, OPEC raising prices would have long ago led to improvements in battery technology and electric cars. But the federal government shields the fossil fuels companies to make sure the “price at the pump” is small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnUY6V2Knk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnUY6V2Knk We should be raising pigovian taxes on fossil fuels at the point of extraction, and redistribute it to all our citizens as a UBI. Alaska has been doing this for decades and they have almost the lowest GINI index of all states year after year. Just like we want bottling and clothing companies to shift from plastics to bidegradeable materials. But you like to keep individuals distracted and blame them for using a straw and a bag, as if THAT is the main cause of pollution. And plastic recycling was a total scam designed to keep people distracted from forcing change on corporations pollution and unsustainable practices upstream.
CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
Where does the chain end? I burn diesel in my tractor to harvest corn. Should the feedlot that buys my corn pay for the tractor’s emissions? Should the slaughterhouse that processes the cattle pay? Should the supermarket that stocks the beef pay? Should the family who grills the steak on Sunday pay? Or just the one who eats the largest portion?
- throw310822 8mo ago
  You either tax the fuel and pass the cost down to the consumers, or decide as a society to share the cost of the externalities and use general taxation for that.
  - pants2 8mo ago
    Here, in the first scenario it directly punishes consumers for consuming more. In the second, it punishes everyone equally on everyone's consumption, which is unlikely to lead to behavior change. So yes, we should tax fossil fuels much more.
    - throw310822 8mo ago
      However, the first scenario will pass the increased cost of fuel down to the consumers affecting poorer people disproportionately. Example: some good that is produced with fossil fuels (including food) will become too expensive for low-income people, while richer (and more polluting) people will not feel the difference that much. If you go for general taxation, you distribute the cost proportionally to income, making rich people pay more. Probably the ideal is a mix of both.
      - pants2 8mo ago
        Ideally in the first scenario where we have well-functioning government, necessities like food and low-income housing would be well subsidized. Other things like random junk from Temu and large gas-guzzling trucks will be less accessible to poorer people by design.
  - 8mo ago
Ygg2 8mo ago
Pretty sure those poor multi billion companies also got huge subsidies.
triceratops 8mo ago
> You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption No I want them to pay for the negative consequences of the lies they spread. I paid them for fuel, and I got fuel. I did not think I was paying for lies and I never wanted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...
danny_codes 8mo ago
I want the emitter to be taxed however much it would cost the market to put the carbon back. Obviously in such a system there wouldn’t be any fossil fuel companies so it’s a moot point. But this isn’t purely economic. Fossil fuel companies are paying top dollar to ensure we destroy the climate. Just look at all the batshit propaganda around climate change. People genuinely believe it’s not a problem. It’s wild how effective the fossil fuel industry has been in convincing people the sky isn’t falling
throw0101c 8mo ago
> You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption while you keep all the generated benefits? The fossil fuel companies will not pay, they'll pass on the costs to consumers: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price Even Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker thought this was a good idea: * https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ Heck, even Milton Friedman: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK_OrGrBG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK_OrGrBG0
xnx 8mo ago
People want to place the blame on someone else and they want to be lied to.

aaronbrethorst 8mo ago

Neat, I’ve never seen a fossil fuel company exec on hacker news before. Welcome!

aoeusnth1 8mo ago
I'm an environmentalist and I agree with this framing. The solution is going to be painful and must increase prices on products and services that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest solution for. If you're not willing to personally sacrifice anything to reduce fossil fuel consumption you can see why carbon taxes are not popular, right? France's protests against them, for example, are a good example of a populist reaction against attempts to regulate the economy to have less emissions.

thesuitonym 8mo ago

The amount of fossil fuels that a working class individual burns are a rounding error compared to what big companies burn. How many private jets are in the air right now? Even if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced, run your home HVAC at max, and buy gasoline just to burn in your back yard, you will never measure up. It's like saying we need to dry the oceans, so you should stop peeing in it.

throw310822 8mo ago
> if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced Sorry, but how was that truck produced? Where did the energy to make it come from? How was your home built, where did the energy come from? Where did the materials come from? How did the workers come to the job? What did they eat, and what do you eat? Do you go to an office? How was it built? How do you and your colleagues get there? Do your children go to school? Do you go to hospitals when you're sick? Etc.
2III7 8mo ago
And who are the customers of big companies driving the demand? Regular people or other companies who also produce for those people.

EGreg 8mo ago

No, what we wanted for decades is for cars to shift to the free market of electric energy, just like every one of our other appliances have for decades. Electricity is a free market - can be generated by hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, even nuclear. If tomorrow they invent clean fusion power then electric cars would be able to benefit. The cars being locked into fossil fuels is the result of fossil fuel subsidies from the government. Otherwise, OPEC raising prices would have long ago led to improvements in battery technology and electric cars. But the federal government shields the fossil fuels companies to make sure the “price at the pump” is small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnUY6V2Knk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnUY6V2Knk We should be raising pigovian taxes on fossil fuels at the point of extraction, and redistribute it to all our citizens as a UBI. Alaska has been doing this for decades and they have almost the lowest GINI index of all states year after year. Just like we want bottling and clothing companies to shift from plastics to bidegradeable materials. But you like to keep individuals distracted and blame them for using a straw and a bag, as if THAT is the main cause of pollution. And plastic recycling was a total scam designed to keep people distracted from forcing change on corporations pollution and unsustainable practices upstream.

CGMthrowaway 8mo ago

Where does the chain end? I burn diesel in my tractor to harvest corn. Should the feedlot that buys my corn pay for the tractor’s emissions? Should the slaughterhouse that processes the cattle pay? Should the supermarket that stocks the beef pay? Should the family who grills the steak on Sunday pay? Or just the one who eats the largest portion?

throw310822 8mo ago
You either tax the fuel and pass the cost down to the consumers, or decide as a society to share the cost of the externalities and use general taxation for that.
- pants2 8mo ago
  Here, in the first scenario it directly punishes consumers for consuming more. In the second, it punishes everyone equally on everyone's consumption, which is unlikely to lead to behavior change. So yes, we should tax fossil fuels much more.
  - throw310822 8mo ago
    However, the first scenario will pass the increased cost of fuel down to the consumers affecting poorer people disproportionately. Example: some good that is produced with fossil fuels (including food) will become too expensive for low-income people, while richer (and more polluting) people will not feel the difference that much. If you go for general taxation, you distribute the cost proportionally to income, making rich people pay more. Probably the ideal is a mix of both.
    - pants2 8mo ago
      Ideally in the first scenario where we have well-functioning government, necessities like food and low-income housing would be well subsidized. Other things like random junk from Temu and large gas-guzzling trucks will be less accessible to poorer people by design.
- 8mo ago

Ygg2 8mo ago

Pretty sure those poor multi billion companies also got huge subsidies.

triceratops 8mo ago

> You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption No I want them to pay for the negative consequences of the lies they spread. I paid them for fuel, and I got fuel. I did not think I was paying for lies and I never wanted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...

danny_codes 8mo ago

I want the emitter to be taxed however much it would cost the market to put the carbon back. Obviously in such a system there wouldn’t be any fossil fuel companies so it’s a moot point. But this isn’t purely economic. Fossil fuel companies are paying top dollar to ensure we destroy the climate. Just look at all the batshit propaganda around climate change. People genuinely believe it’s not a problem. It’s wild how effective the fossil fuel industry has been in convincing people the sky isn’t falling

throw0101c 8mo ago

> You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption while you keep all the generated benefits? The fossil fuel companies will not pay, they'll pass on the costs to consumers: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price Even Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker thought this was a good idea: * https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ Heck, even Milton Friedman: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK_OrGrBG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK_OrGrBG0

xnx 8mo ago

People want to place the blame on someone else and they want to be lied to.