4 ms·

Are you okay with not using products that have an oil refinery in their supply chain?

testbjjl 8mo ago
I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.
- trklausss 8mo ago
  Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s) This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.
wewtyflakes 8mo ago
I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.
- akoboldfrying 8mo ago
  My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism. If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.
  - wewtyflakes 8mo ago
    I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.
    - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
      So you're okay with no refineries after all. So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen. It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.
      - wewtyflakes 8mo ago
        I think the things you are describing would make running a refinery economical, and I am sure at some price some community would be thrilled to have a refinery. Good for them, still glad its not here.
    - anankaie 8mo ago
      Much of the pharmaceutical industry depends on petroleum byproducts.
  - inigyou 8mo ago
    Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?
    - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
      IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.

I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.

trklausss 8mo ago
Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s) This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.
cucumber3732842 8mo ago
If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.

wewtyflakes 8mo ago

I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.

akoboldfrying 8mo ago
My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism. If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.
- wewtyflakes 8mo ago
  I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.
  - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
    So you're okay with no refineries after all. So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen. It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.
    - wewtyflakes 8mo ago
      I think the things you are describing would make running a refinery economical, and I am sure at some price some community would be thrilled to have a refinery. Good for them, still glad its not here.
  - anankaie 8mo ago
    Much of the pharmaceutical industry depends on petroleum byproducts.
- inigyou 8mo ago
  Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?
  - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
    IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.