Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by JulianMorrison » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

allemagne wrote: post #197

JulianMorrison wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon externality pricing is another attempt at market intervention that faceplants in practise. It doesn't get properly implemented, because it's politically unpopular, it gets fudged with highly speculative green-washing "offsets" that amount to planting a few trees and then counting your forests before they're grown (the trees subsequently die of neglect), and the costs get passed on to the little guy. The correc…

Carbon pricing can't work because it's politically unpopular so the solution is to ban gasoline . Come on now.

You'd be surprised, but an all-in solution can be easier to sell than a mealy mouthed half-solution.

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

#202

Post by thinkcontext » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

qeternity wrote: post #170

thinkcontext wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's say they came out decades ago and said "hey, there's probably going to be some repercussions for using our products" ... do you really think that would have changed anything? Yes. Big oil's lies and disinformation seeded the denialism that took hold in the Republican party decades ago.

Fine. What would that have changed? You can blame denialism all you want but a much more powerful motive is economic. For most of their history, fossil fuels have been the cheapest source of energy. It's not as if I see half of the US (Democrats) driving EVs, installing solar on their roofs, eating plant based diets, etc. Blaming Republican denial is just dishonest.

I think Exxon et al saying climate change is real and their own internal research confirms it would have changed policy. Better policies could have meant batteries, nuclear, solar, wind, etc could all have been cheaper faster. It could have meant a carbon border tax which would have hamstrung a lot of US manufacturing going to China. The negotiations between Obama and Lindsey Graham for a carbon price might have succeeded.

There's a whole "What if?" where the innovation and beginnings of a post-denial GOP could have happened earlier.

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

#203

Post by qeternity » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

b3morales wrote: post #199

qeternity wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 50+ years of manufacturers spending on R&D for internal combustion engines could have been spent on improving electric powertrain technology. You're missing the point. This didn't happen because it wasn't economical. You're just wishing for fanciful things. You might as well just wish that CO2 weren't a GHG. Consumer demand forced R&D into ICE instead of electric.

Consumer demand is not, realistically, an isolated phenomenon, though. There's a tangled web of feedback in many directions among what people want to buy, what industry offers people to buy, what technologists are can work on, what R&D risks industry wants to take, and probably other factors. Advertising drives culture to some extent and reflects culture to some extent, not just one or the other. The key point to fig…

Sure, but demand drivers are usually pretty isolated. For commodities, like energy, this driver is price. People want cheap energy. And until recently, nothing could compete with dead dinos.

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

#204

Post by ryan93 » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #183

ryan93 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think everyone understands that dealing with climate change means increasing energy costs substantially. Oil companies wasted money on lobbying. Human nature would have given us the same result

I've never met anyone who could estimate with any degree of certainty how much a given climate policy (e.g., a $15/ton tax on carbon with border adjustments) would affect a given product or service (not even gasoline, which is a straightforward derivative of oil) because supply chains are so opaque. No doubt there are economists and other academics who try to get in the right ballpark, but even then the error margins…

Supply chains aren’t opaque. Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. Flights go up, food prices go up. Gasoline shoots up.

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

#205

Post by dleslie » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

filoeleven wrote: post #193

dleslie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change. > It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more…

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I guess it boils down to the question “where does the incentive to make widespread personal changes come from?” Perhaps the CFC problem is a better analogy. CFCs cause problems with the ozone layer, so CFCs were mandated to be removed from products that people bought like ACs and hairspray. In that instance, the supply chain was fixed, so the option to buy CFC hairspray w…

I'm old enough to remember when CFC and non-CFC hairsprays were both available, and recall the public discussion over whether you should buy one or the other.

Regardless, even though the edict eventually came from on high to stop using CFCs, it was the individual use of them that was ultimately responsible for harm. Punishing oil companies won't make a lick of difference if it doesn't result in changes to our collective, individual behaviour. Like how we stopped using CFC-laiden hairsprays, we're going to have to stop commuting by car, ICE or EV, and stop buying products from overseas, and stop flying.

There is no technological panacea that will allow us to continue to live our lives as we do now.

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

#206

Post by b3morales » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

qeternity wrote: post #175

Dylan16807 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

No, that's not so; you're under a (common) misapprehension: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520

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

#207

Post by PaulHoule » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #195

Hermitian909 wrote: post #100

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…

I mean, if we're going to talk about forest and trees, consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument. If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament? Or more philosophically speaking…

This could be asteroid that kills us

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

Concentrated interests (oil companies) tend to win in battles against diffuse interests (individuals and their descendants who are threatened by climate change.)

An interesting corollary is that a "majority" oppressing a "minority" is not a going concern, but the opposite is. That is, black vs white in the United States vs. South Africa are entirely different things. (Think, 90% of the population can steal everything from 10% of the population and raise it's standard of living by about 10%. 10% of the population can steal 10% of the standard of living from the other 90% and double its own standard of living.)

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

#208

Post by i1856511 » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

This article is right. Individual liability for climate change is a con. The absolute best thing you can do as an individual for the climate is to never have existed in the first place. This sets your climate footprint to 0. However, even in this case, this does not change the trajectory of climate change at all. The hypothetical best is not good enough. So, individual liability is much ado about nothing.

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

#209

Post by imtringued » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #195

Hermitian909 wrote: post #100

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…

I mean, if we're going to talk about forest and trees, consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument. If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament? Or more philosophically speaking…

I think there are two reasons.

Capitalism rests on the promise that inequality maximizes economic growth and economic growth in itself will sweep all other social problems including inequality away. Once there is a prolonged period without (high enough) growth, the promise becomes worthless. People see the inequality for what it is.

However, since there is no growth, they are barely scraping by. They have no spare resources to throw into caring about the environment. So they will all do the thing that hurts them the least today. Meaning they will prefer cheap and destructive products and services over sustainable but expensive ones. Mandating sustainability essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them.

What truly perplexes me though is that even in Germany people will keep voting for parties that basically double "dip", they promise to ensure the availability of cheap unsustainable products but also enact policies that make inequality worse. Cheap meat and oil have basically become a form of welfare to bribe the population.

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

#210

Post by vixen99 » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #94

j_walter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

China has a lower CO2 per capita emissions than the US. Of course, the environment doesn’t care about who has the most per capita emissions, just “cares” about the total emissions, but in terms of measuring efficiency of “how much CO2 needed to support the lifestyle of each person” it seems they currently have a better rate. Like, if you replaced a random subset of China with the population of the US, with another co…

So if we reduce still further (the UK and the US have made significant cuts) you think China will think again about the 43 new coal-fired power stations now in the design stage? I'm not so sure. While paying lip service to the Green agenda, my guess is that perhaps the Chinese don't really believe that the world is headed for armageddon. They are of course happy to see ideas like 'net zero' take off in the West.

https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/