61–66 of 66 posts
This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People generally don't buy Exxon's products because they're hydrocarbon aficionados— they buy them because they need to get to work and their kids need to get to school. And they need cars and gasoline to do those things because American cities and suburbs are usually built around cars as opposed to walking, cycling, and mass transit. While that's not exclusively due to oil and car companies— desires to maintain segr…
Isolated anecdotes aside, oil companies had very little to do with how American cities are designed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people -…
You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making…
The big issue is oil has a very high energy density. Its relatively cheap to extract and transfer.
If we do end up figuring out solar panels that intake C02 and water and output oil, that would be the biggest invention of our generation.
Basically we need more efficient trees at scale. May be DNA programming will come to the rescue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making…
Throwing the responsibility onto individuals is DUMB because it decentralizes responsibility. Responsibility requires accountability in order to work. And as much as we'd all love to implement the anti-scale properties of "the long tail", the FACT of the matter is that efficient & effective management of the problem of pollution DEMANDS that it be centered and focused on the companies that produce it.
Good thing I'm not doing that, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people -…
You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making…
Its not me or you thats changing law to pollute on behalf of corporations or companies. Its lawyers working for corporations.
So how is the commentator "Straw-manning"??