Of course larger-scale changes are larger. One problem is that when you argue for a large-scale change, people generally expect you to be not-a-hypocrite on the small personal level. Small-scale actions give authority to large-scale ideas/arguments.
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
31–40 of 285 posts
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#32I worked in the oil & gas industry about a decade ago. I recall a conversation with our CEO directly talking about renewables and the environment. He said, very clearly, that this entire industry is about money, and they will do whatever makes them the most money. If renewable ever paid more than oil, they'd go there. But direct from his mouth - it is 100% about money. If anyone doubts that they are greed-driven, jus…
I’m not sure how that CEOs response differs from . It is a rare case that you see a CEO decide that some other metric is more important than making money.
It doesn't. It's a CEO's fiduciary duty to act in shareholders best interests.
EDIT: HN, you're really getting juvenile. Save downvotes for low quality comments, not 100% factual comments that you simply don't like.
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#33I love how people who drive cars, fly on planes, use plastic, get goods delivered by truck, etc etc, act like oil companies just pump oil out of the ground for fun then light it on fire. The mental gymnastics are impressive.
Well, some of us might drive electric cars, don't fly if they don't absolutely have to, avoid single use plastics, shop locally and in bulk, etc, etc
Or at least some of us do some of those things. We don't all have to live perfectly carbon neutral lives before we can demand action on a political level or criticize organizations that are actively trying to keep the status quo for as long as possible to maximize their profits.
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#34Genuine question to all the anti "Big Oil" commenters here: what's your alternative?
Let's imagine an alternate history where oil companies hadn't fought against climate change science. What does that alternate universe look like?
We have known for years that climate change is real, and yet the vast majority of people simply won't actually change their consumption when push comes to shove. This is the largest, most serious, tragedy of the commons that we will likely ever face. This problem is so much more complicated than just blaming a few evil CEOs.
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#35[deleted]
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#36People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. No point or even value in demonizing these companies — the whole world is complicit.
> People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. No, they’re not. > We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it.
Nope.
Consumers knew burning gasoline and diesel created pollution 60 years ago.
They could have push for clean alternatives but didnt.
Don’t give them a pass.
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are doing both. Cigarettes are a luxury item. Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. You could fire all of the corporate PR propagandists and lobbyists on the planet and I doubt it would make a dramatic dent in oil consumption. Couldn’t possibly hurt though!
If you want to frame this in terms of the demand side, then downsizing all of the PR propagandists would be a great start, along with all the other zero sum jobs. Instead of efficiency gains causing people to work less and consume less resources for the same output, central banks insist on "full employment" stimulus that creates make-work jobs to compensate. And despite their utility being zero-sum, these workers are…
"full employment" is everyone who is willing and is able to work, not everyone. Also, "full" is defined as something like 96% of people who are willing and able.
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#38[deleted]
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#39People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. No point or even value in demonizing these companies — the whole world is complicit.
> People act like oil companies are the ones burning oil. They’re just responding to demand. No, they’re not. > We need to make oil less competitive, with better alternatives. Like tobacco companies, oil companies have actively lied and lobbied to maintain demand and obstruct coordinated effort of exactly the kind you describe as necessary. They are not passive actors simply responding to demand as they find it.
Is Big Oil why we can't have affordable, safe, quiet housing in dense cities?
Is Big Oil why people like taking planes to Hawaii?
Is Big Oil why it's much cheaper to heat with natural gas?
Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed
#40The Guardian coined the headline "Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed" to blame big oil for our collective greed.
Easy snark on the headline contribute nothing positive to this site. Explain what fault you find in the Guardian premise and I will listen. For e.g., the sister comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28315019 perhaps share your view?
I upvoted the snark because I think in this case it's warranted. I see this article as part of a broader messaging shift to pin the blame for global warming on the N companies that pollute the most, which I don't think is productive.
As an example of how absurd it gets, someone in my local nextdoor group posted something along the lines of “why should I reduce how much I drive when X% of emissions come from N companies”. Those companies are polluting so that you can drive!