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

251–260 of 285 posts

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

#251

Post by datawaslost »

vanderZwan wrote: post #132
datawaslost wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my proudest work, but this was pre-Deepwater and BP was honestly putting a lot of new money towards green and renewable projects. At the time, it felt like a step in the right direction.

I know someone who joined Shell with the hope of helping it transition to renewable technologies (and who was actively lured with that promise), and who later quit after they realized that Shell was just trying to get all capable people who could be working on sustainability stuff to work for them instead, then drip-feed them promises of change while tempting them to work on other projects and give up on those sustai…

Maybe! I think the one thing I've learned from my biggest clients is that slight % increases in sales for companies of that size equal billions of dollars, so there's so much room for waste. It doesn't have to be villainous - they can spend $50m on renewable tech and it just doesn't matter - it's a drop in the bucket compared to other things, and can fail without consequences. I bet it attracted a lot of great talent, and I bet a lot of that was lured towards more profitable things with big bags of money.

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

#252

Post by codingdave »

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.

While the pendulum goes back and forth on this issue, and in past decades, it did lean towards profits, I'm not aware of any regulatory enforcement of business decisions to maximize profits. Quite the contrary, almost all large businesses make charitable donations, which is the legal basis dating back to a 1956 NJ Supreme Court decision to support the legal rights to put social good above corporate profits.

Even if that were not the case, we have recently swung to the other end of the pendulum, with corporate governance groups making an explicit change to work towards more than just profits a couple years ago -- https://fortune.com/longform/business-roundtable-ceos-corpor...

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

#253

Post by datawaslost »

rocgf wrote: post #222
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?

What would the unveiled villainous conversation sound like?

I think this stuff is a lot less complex than people think. Companies just want to increase sales with effective marketing that makes them look better than their competitors.

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

#254

Post by datawaslost »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #242
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…

It's interesting how much more complicated and better thought-out that stuff is now than it was fifteen years ago. I think supply chains and lifecycles are a huge part of things, and it was barely a part of our thinking back then. It was more like "hey did you know taking a plane burns carbon too?"

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

#255

Post by epistasis »

relax88 wrote: post #184
epistasis wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread. Right now we are going through a technological revolution in humanity, maybe on the level of the development of agriculture, in how we generate energy. Renewables and storage are often cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment, and they are getting cheaper just like Moore's law describes the densification of…

When I say petroleum products are a requirement for modern life, what I mean is that more than 80% of the energy driving modern society comes from fossil fuels. It probably doesn’t have to be that way, but it is. You definitely can’t say that for cigarettes. I think that you raise a valid point, but also that you’re far too optimistic about renewables. The people of HN are indeed very tech focused, and I believe that…

I didn't say anything about nuclear here... but since you brought up the subject, I think it's a perfect illustration of how misaligned perception and reality are on the subject.

The "physical limits" of renewables are not limits to our current energy use or even an order of magnitude more. Similarly, the amount of materials is still far far far less than what is required with fossil fuels. And the amount of material needed to build a 1GW nuclear reactor is within a factor of 5-10 of what it takes to build an equivalent amount of solar power, last time I checked. Both of these are far far far less material than what's needed to generate equivalent energy from fossil fuels, it doesn't even really compare.

The complaints against renewables are pretty much insignificant, and definitet not applicable to reality, but these are the complaints that get perpetuated and listened to again and again in utility decision makers. Meanwhile, these same decision makers are not avoiding nuclear because of what environmental groups are saying, they are avoiding it only because of financial reasons. What it took to restart nuclear construction wasn't protection against environmenta lawsuits, it took the South Carolina and Georgia legislatures passing bills that would allow the utilities to bill for construction even if it weren't overbudget, and even if construction failed and the project never generated electricity. Cost is the primary barrier to new nuclear, not environmental opposition.

Nuclear has spent 50 years over-promising and under-delivering, solar and wind have spent 50 years under-promising and over-delivering. They are a study in contrasts between a hype driven field (nuclear) and a results driven field (renewables).

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

#257

Post by _djo_ »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #245
olyjohn wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between them perceiving it to have no impact, and it having no impact.

It also may be important enough to keep funding with 0.0001% of the budget or whatever it costs, but not important enough for a higher level of funding. Still requires advocacy.

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

#258

Post by coryrc »

majormajor wrote: post #157
coryrc wrote: 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?

The oil industry and the auto industry and the layout of 20th century American cities are all pretty thoroughly tied together, so I think you're significantly underestimating the effects of deliberate action on the world. There's a certain mindset of technological determinism that says we can't control what happens with a new technological development, and how it impacts our society, but I completely disagree with it…

If you want to say part of the reason we have suburban sprawl is auto companies, I'll agree with you, but people had real increases in standard of living when moving out of towns. The air was cleaner, the area safer for kids, and it was quieter (especially given our shoddy apartment buildings).

The way the GI Bill was structured contributed as well.

But Big Oil? Way down the list. If you aren't conceiving of the real reasons, you can't address people's true concerns. In a democracy their vote is just as valuable as yours.

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

#259

Post by rb12345 »

epistasis wrote: post #156
relax88 wrote: post #9

Earlier 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!

> Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread. Right now we are going through a technological revolution in humanity, maybe on the level of the development of agriculture, in how we generate energy. Renewables and storage are often cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment, and they are getting cheaper just like Moore's law describes the densification of…

The problem you're possibly missing here is that oil is used for a lot more than just fuel and energy production. It's used for everything else: road surfacing, plastic production, synthetic fibres, chemical and pharmacutical production, lubrication, fertiliser production (although you could switch to green hydrogen for that), and much more. None of that demand disappears if you stop burning oil and gas, although maybe you could use bio-oils as a starting point for some use cases.

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

#260

Post by epistasis »

rb12345 wrote: post #259
epistasis wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life. This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread. Right now we are going through a technological revolution in humanity, maybe on the level of the development of agriculture, in how we generate energy. Renewables and storage are often cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment, and they are getting cheaper just like Moore's law describes the densification of…

The problem you're possibly missing here is that oil is used for a lot more than just fuel and energy production. It's used for everything else: road surfacing, plastic production, synthetic fibres, chemical and pharmacutical production, lubrication, fertiliser production (although you could switch to green hydrogen for that), and much more. None of that demand disappears if you stop burning oil and gas, although may…

What's the problem there though? If it's not burned, for energy, then it's not causing emissions.

The one emitting use case you talk about is fertilizer, and the switch from the Haber process to using electrolyzed hydrogen is already starting. It will require a decade or more of tech development to make it cheaper than existing processes, most likely, but it's almost certain to happen as we scale industrial electrolysis.

An example hydrogen fertilizer project:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/spain-could-become...

Post reply on HN