Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 285 posts

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

#221

Post by pas »

imtringued wrote: post #209
lhorie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

> Mandating X essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them.

This is true for anything. For example on classic argument is about consumer safety. If the state puts up barriers to trade (eg. I can't sell my cheap lead painted toys and maybe fake generic medicine and maybe rancid meat), then things will be much more expensive.

Of course the slippery slope is many times just the continuum fallacy in disguise.

In these cases the real problem is manifold, on one part it's a serious lack of social solidarity and social safety net, and the other component is whatever the actual other part is (eg. unsafe toys that babies can swallow, health concerns about food, drugs, etc.).

Real solutions have to address both. Eg. carbon taxes with direct social dividend. (Or other variations, where the raised money goes to directly address those same issues that arise due to climate change.)

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

#222

Post by rocgf »

datawaslost wrote: post #111

Huh! It’s not every day you see your work called out in The Guardian as “insidious propaganda”! I worked for Ogilvy and Mather in the 00s and made the Carbon footprint stuff they mention, at least one version of it. Didn’t come up with the concept or wording, but was responsible for the web implementation in the US. AMA, I guess

There is this one thing I always wonder about, not just in this particular context, but generally about what is seen as "greedy" corporations, politicians and so on.

Was the conversation ever blatantly villainous or was it a bit more veiled, as is the public discourse?

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

#223

Post by relax88 »

filoeleven wrote: post #108
dleslie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unpopular proposition to state that there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. I also argued that the lockdown was good for combating climate change, and there are many people who are desperate to leave their bedroom communities, hop in their car, and commute to the downtown office.

> there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. Individual adaptations do not matter unless they are undertaken collectively. My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Leading by example AND talking about it has more impact, but still negligible unless/until enough people do it. Changing incentives, by making produ…

I think we all agree that incentives are the single most important factor.

That isn’t an argument against consumers being culpable though. We are all culpable.

Lifestyle choices do matter a lot. Do you buy the tiny condo in a walkable area and put your money into public transit? Or do you live on an acreage and drive a lifted Dodge Ram? How do your behaviours shape the culture of those around you? How will your children choose to live?

In a society where most people are overweight, heart disease and cancer are the biggest killers, our cities are designed around cars, and human social connection and community are fading, being replaced by superficial social media interaction, it matters very much how we personally choose to live. Our way of life tends to rub off on those who are close to us, and our children. A way of life that prioritizes human health, community, political cooperation, and respect for the environment over mindless consumerism is incredibly important to our long term prosperity.

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

#224

Post by aga98mtl »

barbazoo wrote: post #25
codingdave wrote: post #19

I 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…

Isn't that just capitalism? Replace "oil & gas" with any other for profit organizations and the same would be true, no?. E.g. if being privacy focused could make Facebook even more money than what they're doing now, they'd do it, etc.

> Isn't that just capitalism?

Soviet Russia was into oil production just as much as anyone else. The simple truth is that oil is very useful and the externalities are easy to ignore. The blame game is not useful for this situation.

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

#225

Post by rib3ye »

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 don't think it's pessimistic to say that as the "green" economy expands we are starting to see those same well-funded parties buying PR to selling snake oil or spreading fud. Energy is pretty hard to the average person to understand and energy+politics is almost impossible without some interest/background in foreign policy.

https://www.kochind.com/stewardship/environmental-performanc...

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

#226

Post by riversflow »

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 mostly agree with what you said here. I'm constantly reminding people I know that its called the petrochemical industry because its about far more than just fossil fuels, you can't unwind the need for advanced chemicals in modern society, the population is just too big for us to realistically unwind our need for e.g. the Haber-Bosch process without major advances, and both the pharmaceuticals industry and high tech are completely dependent on extremely complicated oil-based supply chains. Many people will at this juncture reply that we just need less people, but thats not really an ethical solution by any modern standard.

>susceptible to being wiped out globally by a single unforeseen threat

I'm actually pretty optimistic about this, I think that we have enough people and growing standards of education, that assuming the technological solutions are out there, we will probably find them. The only threat that we aren't taking seriously that would really screw us up is some sort of cosmic event (I am very frustrated that with all the talks of creating a more flexible grid for renewables we aren't taking on the added burden of hardening against a solar storm, which seems inevitable. I'm pretty sure we would be pretty screwed if another Carrington Event happened today.[1])

>"democracy is the voice of the people" argument.

Serious question, is this really a point of view that people have in serious circles? I don't know a single person who believes that the US doesn't suffer from a burgeoning plutocracy. I've been calling this the second guilded age for years now, and it only seems to be getting worse. There is no Teddy Roosevelt figure rising that I see. I can only hope that the next generation of politicians will take reigning in this monster more seriously, but I'm skeptical.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event I feel like something of this magnitude would be enough of a setback on science, in many ways, that all hope might be lost of escaping the terminal state we have put the earth into.

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

#227

Post by hnaccount141 »

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…

> Or more philosophically speaking, whose fault is it that people living under democratic rules don't challenge the efficacy of their governments? Or, perhaps more importantly, why?

Because, in the US at least, average people have very little actual influence over government policy relative to the influence enjoyed by business interests and the capital class.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

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

#228

Post by someguy321 »

anaerobicover wrote: post #174
paulgb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I figure that my above comment is pithy more than it's snarky, especially considering that many repliers understood its intent accurately.

People disagree on where the blame lies regarding consumption vs production, and it's difficult to know what is posturing and what is not.

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

#229

Post by UncleMeat »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #150
glogla wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The unmoral corporate and legal pressures and incentive structures they're in dictate that they do their best to earn short term profits. They are unconcerned whether their actions kill off humanity eventually, that's simply not a factor they're capable of caring about.

Then we must destroy the very idea of a corporation. If it is truly impossible for a corporation to avoid fundamentally damaging human civilization in search of the almighty dollar, then we need to prevent those incentives from existing in the first place.

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

#230

Post by j_walter »

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…

The US has been trending down per capita for the last 50 years...but the problem is we have more people so the total output is higher. China's trend, as another poster said, is always going higher.

https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment

Post reply on HN