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

241–250 of 285 posts

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

#241

Post by thehappypm »

pjc50 wrote: post #88
ren_engineer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the tragedy is that we'd probably be carbon neutral if it wasn't for activists who lobbied against nuclear energy decades ago because it wasn't "environmentally friendly"

It was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons; Greenpeace got their start protesting against atom bomb tests in the Pacific, and later against the dumping of radioactive waste in the sea. The pollutants are uniquely permanent, and not enough effort was made to not just contaminate the world. Perhaps the nuclear industry needs to examine why their marketing failed where the oil industry succeeded.

It's largely because of the free market. There is not really a nuclear "industry", nuclear plants are more of a government thing worldwide. Governments aren't as good at the ruthless cost-cutting and decision-making that is needed to be competitive with the private sector. It's hard to imagine an Exxon-for-nuclear when you consider that nuclear fuel is impossible to acquire privately.

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

#242

Post by SuoDuanDao »

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

Honestly, the only way for grassroots efforts to do anything is to become less dependent on these doubleplus ungood corporations. I think your work is incredibly valuable, and given the quality of the Guardian recently I wouldn't be surprised to learn they're criticising your work because it encourages people to consoom less.

Bit of a technical question for your AMA, how do you see the tradeoffs in carbon footprints if supply chains shorten? There's efficiencies of scale balanced against cost of moving materials that I assume means the smallest carbon footprint for a given lifestyle requires some extended supply chains, but probably shorter than what we have today. Any thoughts on that?

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

#243

Post by betterunix2 »

thehappypm wrote: post #4

People 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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...

That is not "just responding to demand," it is actively working to inflate demand. Oil companies have worked hard for decades to keep people in their cars, including participating in the conspiracy to dismantle electric streetcar lines across America (along with GM and several tire manufacturers). You say we need to make oil less competitive, but oil companies are actively working against efforts to do so.

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

#244

Post by glogla »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #239
namanyayg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big oil downvoted this. Jokes aside, I really don't see the reason for downvotes. Oil made our world what it is; but any company who still focuses on its profits while knowing alternatives exist that are better for the planet, and parallelly spending billions in PR, is downright evil. I'd even say it's much more evil than Facebook's or Google's privacy issues that HN bashes every week.

Well, I'd say it's a bit funny to call something evil when a lot of people would die if it disappeared tomorrow. It's very easy to criticise the costs of modern life when the 'evil' is displaced onto someone else. But the truth is, it's a much more morally grey area than we like to admit. And it's hard to opt out of this 'system', but not impossible - I'm sure the Amish would take converts, but not many people want t…

> It's an appealing story to say that the O&G economy is the villain and all the people participating in it are innocent, but the truth is, we know how to live in bronze age societies. This 'evil system' doesn't stick around because it holds us prisoner, it sticks around because most of us prefer the lifestyle. And a story that absolves us of responsibility for participating seems like just another defence mechanism the system has built up.

Normal people have much less choice than you imagine.

Even in the rich western world, only the very affluent can buy electric car instead of gas one. Only the very affluent can afford apartments in city centers so they can walk instead of driving. Nobody can change where their electricity comes from, whether is it coal or renewables. Nobody can pick between grocery store that gets its supply in diesel trucks and second grocery store that gets its supply on electric trucks and trains powered by renewable electricity. There's no "planet non-destroying iphone" next to "planet destroying iphone" in the shop for you to decide between.

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

#245

Post by turbinerneiter »

olyjohn wrote: post #192
turbinerneiter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably, if you used words they know instead of acronyms they don't. "Do you want the radio signal that allows clocks to sync to keep running? Here is a list of devices you might know and use that rely on them: ..."

I guarantee nobody would care. Even when you tell people the impact it might have on them... they may only have to replace one clock, or not any at all. Their cell phone clock works just fine.

Well if it has no impact on them then maybe it's not so important.

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

#246

Post by boplicity »

allemagne wrote: post #194
JulianMorrison wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big changes need government intervention. The government needs to take away the option to run cars, trucks, etc on gasoline, and restrict flights that don't use renewable energy (such as via Hydrogen). Otherwise the individual can only do a very little, and often can't afford to do that.

I strongly agree with you and the parent comment. Yes, people who refuse to recognize the problem beyond the greed of oil companies are a problem. Yes, oil companies are in fact a bigger problem. However, the biggest problem is if you want a government to stay in power long enough to actually do anything meaningful about eliminating carbon emissions, then announcing some kind of imminent intention to take away gasoli…

The smart thing isn't to take away cars, but to invest heavily in high-quality alternatives, while making emissions increasingly expensive. Unfortunately, this isn't happening at nearly the level it should be.

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

#247

Post by jfengel »

betterunix2 wrote: post #235
jfengel wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think most of it is culture war. The people who oppose oil companies are often the same people who take progressive views on a lot of other topics -- gay rights, gun control, pollution, etc. And that generates an almost knee-jerk opposition: anything they are for, we must be against. It's tribalism. If liberals are opposed to oil companies, than oil companies must be good. Then they'll be provided with ar…

"the longstanding culture war between left and right" ...by which you must mean the "culture war" that only the right wing seems to know or care about. It is not really "between" the left and right as much as it is a right-wing concept that people on the left almost universally roll their eyes at (or fall into the trap of actually responding to right-wing agitation). "Neither side has to do any thinking" Except that,…

I'm infected with that same consolation-seeking attitude that so many left-centrists show: "Always admit your own side's weaknesses."

So I can't avoid acknowledging that I do see a certain amount of culture-warrioring on the left, and a lot of people arriving at the right answer for the wrong reasons. I do that even though the things you point out are undeniable and obvious. The Republican party has stopped trying. They know perfectly well that even their nominal "centrists" are always going to side with their lunatic fringe, even as I can't control the impulse to limit my own (and earning their ire in the process).

I'm completely aware that almost every post I make with even the slightest hint of progressivism is going to be downvoted. (I'm stunned that my above post is currently sitting at +3, though I've little doubt it will be down below zero by morning.)

And yet... I grew up talking at a time when we were entitled to differences of opinion but not differences of fact. And I just can't seem to shake the way that pushed me to seek accommodations, to trust that the truth was the best way to argue and seek a compromise we could all live with. It's been a very long time since I've believed that -- over a decade. But the habits are hard to break.

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

#248

Post by betterunix2 »

marcusverus wrote: post #104
dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. These really aren't very similar. Big Tobacco's lies were the only thing propping up the tobacco industry. As soon as the truth became clear, their industry was absolutely crushe…

"a hard requirement to keep the lights on around the world"

That is a bad example of what we need the petroleum industry for. A combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear power could meet the world's electricity needs for many decades to come, especially as we have become so much more efficient with our electricity use compared to previous decades. The very link you provided states, "Globally, fossil fuels account for a much smaller share of electricity production than the energy system as a whole."

The bigger challenges are transportation (especially airplanes and cargo ships) and the chemicals industry, where oil is much harder to replace. Electric cars and trains are doable with sufficient infrastructure investment, but for cargo ships the only real alternative right now is nuclear power, and I am not sure we have any viable alternatives for air transport as we know it.

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

#249

Post by datawaslost »

uhorb wrote: post #125
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

Oh cool, thank you. I’ve read that oil companies were well aware of how climate change is going to develop based on their sales volume and the resulting oil consumption. Assuming that's true for BP. To which detail was the climate change impact communicated to you? Was it an explicit requirement to focus public interest away from BP? What is your opinion on the article in this post?

I can't really speak to BP's higher-level strategy, but this was the mid-2000s. The fact that an oil company was saying anything about climate change felt like a step forward. Other oil companies' ads were all about American workers and generic shots of sunsets over oil fields, BP wanted to position themselves as the "green" gas station at a time when that was becoming more a concern - not just with climate change but overall. At that point, BP had a pretty good environmental record compared to competitors like Exxon, who was still reeling from the Valdez disaster - so the requirement would've been to focus public interest on BP, not away from it.

But oil companies don't run ads telling people not to buy gasoline, so you've got to come at it from a slightly different angle. Luckily, "Greener than Exxon" was a pretty low bar, so they didn't need to talk about carbon taxes or emissions. Personal energy consumption has been a part of the discourse since the 70s, and probably fit in well - virtually no one will actually change their habits in any meaningful way, but will probably come out of it feeling better about themselves and BP.

The article itself seemed kinda all over the place. I agree that the world would be a better place if her preferences would've been enacted fifteen years ago, but I'm not sure that BP's advertising campaign had that much to do with it. It wasn't 4-D chess, it was "BP = Green = Good", and literally blew up in their face a few years later when Deepwater exploded.

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

#250

Post by m4x »

coryrc wrote: post #39
dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Is Big Oil why it's much cheaper to heat with natural gas?

Heating with natural gas is incredibly expensive. It only looks cheap because most of the costs are externalised - thanks to lobbying by Big Oil.

Post reply on HN