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

Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#71

Post by nickersonm »

acdha wrote: post #61
nickersonm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet these companies aren't the ones actually burning the oil, are they? They merely sell the product which others then burn. How can you hold only them responsible but excuse the parties further downstream?

Because those aren't unrelated: it'd be one thing if they just sold oil, but they're behind campaigns deceiving the public about the true cost of using it and encouraging additional consumption. People today are buying new trucks and SUVs which get worse mileage than the 1980s did in part because there's been this well-funded anti-science propaganda campaign and many efforts to hide the true costs. Put more succinctl…

If oil companies have been campaigning specifically to deceive customers about the potential harms those customers may cause, then that should be what they are "held responsible" for. Trying to make them responsible for harms others caused using their products is rather orthogonal to that, and doesn't bolster arguments criticizing them.

Tangentially, while some vehicles presumably have worse mileage than a comparably-sized vehicle from the 1980s, fuel efficiency has significantly increased since 2005 (after a small decrease from 1985-2005) while supporting continuously increasing power and weight [0]:

In the two decades prior to 2004, technology innovation and market trends generally resulted in increased vehicle power and weight (due to increasing vehicle size and content) while average new vehicle fuel economy steadily decreased and CO2 emissions correspondingly increased. Since model year 2004, the combination of technology innovation and market trends have resulted in average new vehicle fuel economy increasing 32%, horsepower increasing 20%, and weight increasing 4%.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#72

Post by acdha »

nickersonm wrote: post #71
acdha wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those aren't unrelated: it'd be one thing if they just sold oil, but they're behind campaigns deceiving the public about the true cost of using it and encouraging additional consumption. People today are buying new trucks and SUVs which get worse mileage than the 1980s did in part because there's been this well-funded anti-science propaganda campaign and many efforts to hide the true costs. Put more succinctl…

If oil companies have been campaigning specifically to deceive customers about the potential harms those customers may cause, then that should be what they are "held responsible" for. Trying to make them responsible for harms others caused using their products is rather orthogonal to that, and doesn't bolster arguments criticizing them. Tangentially, while some vehicles presumably have worse mileage than a comparably…

> Tangentially, while some vehicles presumably have worse mileage than a comparably-sized vehicle from the 1980s,

There's a challenge here: people have been encouraged to buy larger vehicles. A small car will have better mileage now but the kind of vehicle the average person is commuting to work in now is much larger than it was three decades ago. I would argue that this is in part due to the successful campaign which fossil fuel companies funded to reverse conservation wins of the late 70s & early 80s. It wasn't just them but they had a significant role in shaping the political and social discourse (e.g. promoting gas guzzling as a macho thing).

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#73

Post by lasfter »

satvikpendem wrote: post #66
lasfter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would have still been plenty rich enough if they did campaign against their own product, so their choice to withhold this information can only be attributed to plain greed. We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's n…

> Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. When people talk about corporations and morality, I am reminded about the quip about Larry Ellison: > You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don…

I agree, but plenty of people seem to think this excuses immoral behavior by corporations. You can even see a couple in this thread. We can't really get effective legislation passed until we can agree that it is indeed bad for a corporation to lie, cause harm, etc, and that misbehaving corporations (and more importantly, the people who lead them) should be punished.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#74

Post by stjohnswarts »

whatever1 wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what was the expectation. For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? We have legislative bodies that we literally elect and pay to do this job. Let’s stop the hypocrisy and look ourselves in the mirror.

It kind of smells of hypocrisy, it's comparable to when some italian authorities wanted to imprison scientists for not predicting earthquakes. Lots of scientists knew about it and didn't say anything, also earthquakes happen in earthquake zones.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#75

Post by adam_arthur »

lasfter wrote: post #63
adam_arthur wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil and coal have lifted more out of poverty than possibly any other invention/discovery in the modern era. The key is not to villainize fossil fuels, but to recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make. Think about how privileged you are in life that you can even consider not depending on fossil fuels. Hysterical takes like yours come across completely na…

I'm not vilifying fossil fuels. I'm vilifying fossil fuel companies. > recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make How can we do that when fossil fuel companies lie about the benefits and costs? How can we do that when they bribe politicians for favorable legislation? You are the naive one, and not particularly well-informed given you did not even read th…

Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? They are a biased party

It may feel cathartic to lash out at perceived “evil” entities but you accomplish nothing that way. Some prefer perception of justice to actual results though, so to each their own.

I think you’d find a world without fossil fuels has quite a bit more misery than the one we have today. Green transition needs to be well thought out and planned for, not taken lightly

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#76

Post by stjohnswarts »

TinyRick wrote: post #19
whatever1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all of the country elected to keep them in power

The voters in the 70s and 80s did, sure. But as this article explains, those voters were withheld crucial information that could have informed their voting choices. 2010 was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and in the past decade+ I (and many others) have not voted for pro-oil/coal/fracking/etc candidates. Yet we're the ones that are (and will continue to) live with the consequences of Big Oil's actions…

they are still voting for them, for example the House of Representatives is now majority Republican who almost all don't believe in global warming or believe in it and believe "eh, whatever, I got mine". Are they not as guilty as Exxon? Are the people voting for them any less responsible than Exxon. If you participate in the modern economy, are you not also complicit?

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#78

Post by lasfter »

adam_arthur wrote: post #75
lasfter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not vilifying fossil fuels. I'm vilifying fossil fuel companies. > recognize their benefits and costs and decide collectively via policy what tradeoffs we’re willing to make How can we do that when fossil fuel companies lie about the benefits and costs? How can we do that when they bribe politicians for favorable legislation? You are the naive one, and not particularly well-informed given you did not even read th…

Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with? They are a biased party It may feel cathartic to lash out at perceived “evil” entities but you accomplish nothing that way. Some prefer perception of justice to actual results though, so to each their own. I think you’d find a world without fossil fuels has quite a bit more misery than the one we have today. Green transition needs to be wel…

> Why would you ask fossil fuel companies about the cost/benefit to begin with?

Indeed, tell that to the politicians who made their energy policy decisions based on conversations with oil lobbies.

I feel no catharsis from commenting, and I don't pretend that bad press is 'justice'. Justice would be prison time for the people in charge that suppressed this information. I have no way of working toward this vision of society other than bitching to politicians and peers about every individual company's moral fuck ups.

What actual results are you working towards? What is your version of justice in this case?

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#79

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

satvikpendem wrote: post #66
lasfter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. The fact is that the people profiting from Big Oil would have still been plenty rich enough if they did campaign against their own product, so their choice to withhold this information can only be attributed to plain greed. We don't expect murderers to turn themselves in, we pay police forces to find them. But it's n…

> Just because it's in your best interest to fuck over the world doesn't mean it's morally justifiable. When people talk about corporations and morality, I am reminded about the quip about Larry Ellison: > You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don…

> Morality is not an input parameter at all, so why do people expect that it would be taken into account?

Do people expect it or do they merely want to change things such that it is an input parameter?

Just because sociopaths are allowed to run rampant and fuck up everything for the rest of us doesn't mean we have to like it and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it.

Post reply on HN