Live data from Hacker News

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

theguardian.com

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we would already apply environmental legislation to CO2 as a pollutant such that carbon intensive industries and products would be more expensive and low carbon products/industry more competitive giving consumers more choice.

Who do you mean by "we"...because some countries don't give a shit about the impact they are having on the world and still pollute the air and water worse than EU and US countries 50 years ago (China, India, etc).

Under the current circumstances, sure they do. But just like skipping landlines for cellphones, if the incentives were such that developing countries could leapfrog over dirty industry without a development penalty (which could be possible had we taken a different path the last 50+ years) - they very well might.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#172
Blaming supply or demand when you have an unpriced negative externality doesn't make sense. Tax carbon, and use the funds to pay for decarbonization. We'll get better and cheaper alternatives and carbon sinks.

Many quote $100 to $1000/tCO2e. But if we get down to $10, getting to net zero and negative won't break the bank.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#173
post #82
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To answer my questions: 1 Not to my knowledge; housing policy reflects the desire for segregation. 2 No, Hawaii is nice. 3 No, it's physics. Until very recently even a heat pump would burn more hydrocarbons using the grid than direct heating and cost a lot more.

1: True

2: Big oil did push to keep the plane fuel low (or rather inexistant) worldwide though. But true.

3: What? No. Unless recently is everything after the 70s. Heat pump was more efficient than gas heating since the 50s (at least), but was hard to control, that was the main issue. My friend grandad learned to work with heat pumps during the Franco-Algerian war (54 i think) and installed one in his home (on Oleron Island) in the 70s (first that were home-sized). I think they were built in Sweden. His career was made on this tech.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#174
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compani…

This your comment has some well reasons, and I thank you despite that I disagree. It contribute to the exchange of ideas. The top comment does not so, this is my objection.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'best interests' can include priorities other than money.

No, they can't. This isn't my opinion. This is opinion of the US legal system.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question is about long term interests versus short term. having an excellent qtr when you company falls off a cliff at the end of the year would probably be considered not looking out for share holder's best interest.

Sure? All of these evil companies have had many, many good quarters (decades worth...which is pretty long term) and now have tens of billions of quarterly profits at their disposal to invest in wherever the next decades of demand will be.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fossil fuels are readily available and highly energy dense and relatively safe. Nothing else offers that. Your car or plane can't tell the difference between fossil hydrocarbons and biofuel hydrocarbons. (Though you might adjust a car to use ethanol instead of longer compounds.)

Does it still take 1l of (subsidized) fossil fuel to produce 1l of biofuel?

> One of the most often cited results from Sheehan et al. is that the fossil energy ratio of biodiesel is equal to 3.2. In other words, biodiesel yields 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed over its life- cycle.

> Recently, a 5.54 fossil energy ratio (FER) was reported [1] which means one unit of fossil energy input is required to produce 5.54 units of biodiesel energy output. This FER shows a stunning energy return of biodiesel that surpasses other fuels [2].

Seems fine. And that's probably without even trying to use all electric equipment.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#178

Controversial thought(not my opinion) Fossil fuels are good for the world, The reason we used them was because we did not have any real alternative at the time. For the vast majority of history, people were dirt poor. By utilizing fossil fuels we were able to lift billions of people out of poverty. Think about it, you cant really run an industrialized economy on 100% reneable energy. Wind and solar are variable energ…

You can run an industrialized economy on renewable energy. It just wouldn't look the same as the one we have developed in the presence of fossil fuels.

If there were a colony of modern humans established on an Earth-like planet that lacked surface coal seams, didn't have limestone deposits for cement, and lacked oil fields, you wouldn't expect them to shrug and say "Well, back to the stone age, I guess."

No, instead, they'd set up smart grid networks to use power when wind and solar were available and consume less energy when it was not. They'd use DC-DC converters that were more flexible under brownouts, where early energy systems didn't have that technology and had to rely on fixed transformers and fixed frequencies. They'd connect long distance, high-voltage lines between areas with hydro and geothermal energy to regions without, using pumped hydro storage when variable energy sources had excesses. Yes, they'd run Sabatier process factories to generate synthetic hydrocarbons for plastics and portable fuels, they'd precipitate calcium carbonate from ocean salts and atmospheric CO2 to make cements and ceramics; these would probably be less plentiful as a result of their cost and because they'd be aware that they don't decay but they wouldn't be nonexistent.

Our energy systems are moving bit by painful bit in this direction already. Indian, African, and other growing economies are growing in a world where renewables are cheap, where we have tech that makes them more usable, and where there's a lot of knowledge about climate and environmental science so they don't have to make the same mistakes we did.

Yes, the industrialized world works the way it does because of a history of fossil fuels. It may even have been impossible to jump-start the industrial revolution without them. But it doesn't have to remain that way.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#179

A lot of comments here seem to be focusing on the fact that individuals use oil products beyond what is necessary for basic life and in fact do have some personal responsibility. This seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes society ends up in a situation where we need things that are not sustainable, like oil or coal. Producing those unsustainable products to meet the demands of society does not…

That's totally true, but it's also true that if we reined in consumption, altered our habits and focused on reusing more then we are doing two things. First, we're taking ownership for our responsibility in this whole mess (acknowledging that there are trees in this forest), and second we're hurting oil companies where it counts. If we don't consume they can't supply.

If we wait for our governments to hold them to account we're not going to get anywhere.

Re: Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed

#180
post #124

A lot of comments here seem to be focusing on the fact that individuals use oil products beyond what is necessary for basic life and in fact do have some personal responsibility. This seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes society ends up in a situation where we need things that are not sustainable, like oil or coal. Producing those unsustainable products to meet the demands of society does not…

Well said. I will never understand why people protect oil companies. You know how in comic books there's always a villain going trying to DESTROY THE WORLD and it seems unrealistic and over the top? Oil companies are this villain in the real world. They are doing their best to kill off humanity, for short term profit.

There is a market for the products they supply at the price they offer, there is a demand for return on investment they provide in a global financial system (and just try to disconnect from that).

I hate that companies are ruining the environment, I hate that companies are killing people with unsafe products, I hate that companies are mistreating workers, I hate that countries have bullied their way over indigenous peoples to "own" the country I live it, I hate that companies profit off of promoting things that destroy humanity as we used to know it.

But I don't see there being a clear line between who is "good" and who is "bad". My own answer, which I expect will please very few, is that we do our best in the small sphere of influence we have to be loving toward all, and beg God to save us.

Post reply on HN