4 ms·

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!

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.
    - inigyou 8mo ago
      So if an oil refinery doesn't need to go in a city, it's not hypocritical nimbyism to say you don't want an oil refinery in your city?
      - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
        Right, but the salient thing is the effect on people. By that I mean: Suppose we could locate all refineries outside of anywhere that is technically a "city", but in every possible such assignment of refinery locations, some refinery is still as close to someone's home as it would be if it were in a city. In this scenario, calling for a ban on refineries in your city would still be hypocritical nimbyism, since you are still requiring someone to be placed in a situation that you yourself would not accept. In any case, California is a state, not a city.
- tzs 8mo ago
  > If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere That doesn't follow. It only follows that they are bad everywhere with circumstances similar to California. A place differing in distribution of population, distribution of agricultural land, weather patterns, and/or water flows might be able to have refineries without causing the harms that makes them difficult to place in California.
  - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
    I agree with your reasoning in principle, but I think it doesn't hold up for California specifically. According to Gemini, 90% of California's population lives in 5% of its land area, and 45-50% of the land is government-owned, much of it being unpopulated wild areas including large parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. The state is large, diverse and already contains vast chunks of unpopulated land. Almost everywhere that isn't near the poles is similar to some part of California.

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.
  - inigyou 8mo ago
    So if an oil refinery doesn't need to go in a city, it's not hypocritical nimbyism to say you don't want an oil refinery in your city?
    - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
      Right, but the salient thing is the effect on people. By that I mean: Suppose we could locate all refineries outside of anywhere that is technically a "city", but in every possible such assignment of refinery locations, some refinery is still as close to someone's home as it would be if it were in a city. In this scenario, calling for a ban on refineries in your city would still be hypocritical nimbyism, since you are still requiring someone to be placed in a situation that you yourself would not accept. In any case, California is a state, not a city.
tzs 8mo ago
> If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere That doesn't follow. It only follows that they are bad everywhere with circumstances similar to California. A place differing in distribution of population, distribution of agricultural land, weather patterns, and/or water flows might be able to have refineries without causing the harms that makes them difficult to place in California.
- akoboldfrying 8mo ago
  I agree with your reasoning in principle, but I think it doesn't hold up for California specifically. According to Gemini, 90% of California's population lives in 5% of its land area, and 45-50% of the land is government-owned, much of it being unpopulated wild areas including large parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts. The state is large, diverse and already contains vast chunks of unpopulated land. Almost everywhere that isn't near the poles is similar to some part of California.