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

81–90 of 174 posts

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

#81

Post by nickersonm »

acdha wrote: post #72
nickersonm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whic…

Thanks for your civil engagement on what is often a contentious topic.

While not a perfect representation of purchases, I believe the EPA chart (Fig. ES-3) I referred to shows the average of all for-sale models for a given year, so this should capture the increasing preference for larger vehicles. Indeed, the horsepower and curb weight are shown as significant increases, even while fuel efficiency is improving (≥2005). It looks to me like the average fuel efficiency passed the 1985 peak (presumably driven by the 1970s oil crises) around 2007.

Clearly two decades of decreasing efficiency was not ideal, but I posit it may be the 1985-2005 period which you are mostly remembering. Going by the chart there was a fast shift to smaller and 'weaker' cars for highly increased efficiency 1970-1975, after which there was a slow continuous increase of power and weight - first occasioning a slow but relatively small decline in efficiency (compared to the 1970-1975 increase), but then changing to increasing efficiency as that became a more important factor for consumers.

Relatedly, while I am certainly not the target audience for the kind of advertisements that may encourage people to purchase more oil-based products, I cannot recall seeing any automotive advertising that wasn't clearly produced by a specific vehicle manufacturer. It sounds like you are suggesting 2nd and 3rd tier advertising by fuel companies for reversing the 1970-1975 reduction in consumption, but I'm not familiar with that space - I would appreciate it if you could direct me to any resources you have about that.

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

#82

Post by layer8 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #35
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When will those responsible be held accountable You have sown the revolving door and now you reap its harvest. Nobody will be held to account so long as the institutions that would be doing the holding have a massive overlap in relevant skills, subject matter and therefore, personnel (especially at the management levels where these sorts of decisions get made).

"You"? I was born in 1991, my generation certainly didn't invent that crap, that was all during the reign of the Boomers - who, to add insult to injury, keep occupying positions of power instead of resigning and retiring to let those rise who will actually have to live on this wreck of a planet the next fifty to seventy years (assuming no major war gets us all killed).

I’m pretty sure a similar subset within the younger generations will end up doing the same.

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

#83

Post by LarryMullins »

klyrs wrote: post #65
melling wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Sagan knew coal usage would be a big problem, and yet it’s still a huge problem almost 40 years later. People wouldn’t know if coal power plants disappeared tomorrow, replaced by any other form of electricity

Except for the ~40k employees of the coal industry[1], who are used as a scapegoat by the politicians (ahem, Manchin) who take the most ardent stands against modernization of our electrical infrastructure. And I'd bet that most of those employees' skills would transfer pretty directly to any other sort of mining. But it's just not that many people. We could cut them each a $1M check for the trouble, which is about 10…

It's easy to claim coal miners could transition to another mining industry, but what mining industry in those regions could absorb that many miners? None I think. It's not as though a secession of coal mining would create a boom in other mining industries.

> We could cut them each a $1M check for the trouble, which is about 10 years worth of coal subsidies[2].

Maybe if they were offered that deal for real, they'd take it. But without such a deal, can you really blame those workers for not wanting their careers erased in America of all places? Their families would become destitute and there would be little sympathy for them. Instead of a buyout, they'd receive little but 'learn to code' jeers. They'd be told they're expected to move away from the communities they've live in for generations, leave their families behind and scatter with the winds. I know this doesn't seem like a big deal to a forum full of rootless cosmopolitan tech workers who often live thousands of miles away from where they came from, myself included, but people don't often wish this sort of radical uncertainty and instability on themselves and their own families. So of course they elect politicians who advocate for their interests. If you think this is about politicians duping coal workers, you've got it backwards. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

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

#84

Post by ars »

V__ wrote: post #60

I don't want to wish someone the worst. But I wouldn't loose one second of sleep if all those people involved in delaying climate action got some karmic justice.

The only kind of climate action possible in those days was nuclear power.

If you go check who actually delayed nuclear deployment you will discover it was environmentalists.

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

#85

Post by erulabs »

I've chatted with a few folks who have spent their entire lives working in climate science while being employed by the oil industry. They're some of the most moderate, intelligent, considered people I've ever talked to. And most people hear "a climate scientist who works for an oil company" and assumes they're the worst sort - a profiteer or a liar or a complicit drone. They're not leadership - they don't get to decide what is to be done with their conclusions - but they're not all evil.

Now... the leadership folks who commissioned these predictions and then ignored them... That's another matter!

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

#86

Post by jokethrowaway »

lordnacho wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable I get the second part. But what's the utility of the first over a fine? Are you suggesting nationalizing Exxon? Or liquidating it?

I think actually liquidating isn't so bad. Now and again nature strikes down a giant and a lot of other creatures benefit from it. It's actually a bit odd that when we invented corporations we didn't have some sort of catastrophe mechanism in there just to shake hands up now and again. I think society would find ways to become more resilient if we lived with possible corporate sudden death.

We do, but corporations which are rich enough just bribe the government and gets bailouts or special treatments.

If it was the people vs Exxon with private judges in private courts (judges which compete with one another on who's the best, not government officials with a comfy chair and a guaranteed lifetime of administering "justice"), it would be way harder to corrupt.

That's why we need to decentralise our government power.

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

#87

Post by _visgean »

ars wrote: post #84
V__ wrote: post #60

I don't want to wish someone the worst. But I wouldn't loose one second of sleep if all those people involved in delaying climate action got some karmic justice.

The only kind of climate action possible in those days was nuclear power. If you go check who actually delayed nuclear deployment you will discover it was environmentalists.

There was plenty of action possible; building more railways, different city design less dependent on car travel and maybe publishing their own research instead of burying it for 40 years...

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

#88

Post by jokethrowaway »

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…

Reputation plays a role.

Legislation can be bought.

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

#89

Post by fwungy »

State oil companies dwarf the international producers like Exxon by a factor of 10-20, depending on how you count.

All the wonderful carbon free schemes ignore the fact that these state owned oil companies hold trillions in oil wealth in reserves. How do you get these states (e.g. Putin/Russia) to walk away from that money?

This is why we need to think about mitigation strategies a lot harder.

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

#90

Post by suprjami »

mardifoufs wrote: post #62
suprjami wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burn down your house. Yeah, your house is gone, but look how warm you are today! Fossil fuels are not the only form of energy. We could have put decades of technological effort into wind and solar and battery and waves and all the other options. We'd be so much further forward than we are today. Instead the industry just lobbied and lied.

At the time when this research happened, so in the 1970 - 80s? Yes, they were the only viable form of energy for almost everything. Suggesting that we should've ditched fossil fuels in the 70s and 80s is a bit asinine and would've resulted in immense loss of lives, especially in less developed areas of the world. There weren't really any other alternatives. Electrification is only possible due to recent advancement i…

Please quote the sentence where I allegedly said to drop fossil fuels in the 70s with no viable replacement, plunging the world into a dark age. I didn't say that.

Yes, fossil fuels do seem to be an unavoidable evil on the path to technological advancement.

However, the point is: There were no viable alternatives for the last 50 years because the fossil fuel industry did everything in their power to cover up the impending disaster and instead focused all efforts on lobbying to maintain their profits.

Imagine if Exxon had made their findings public in 1973 and had instead lobbied for renewables and moving away from fossil fuels. We'd be 50 years ahead of our current energy technology. We'd have a lot more options for generation and storage with a lot more density.

The "recent advancements" are only recent because we've pissed the last 50 years against the wall so some asshole billionaires could afford more yachts.

"What if someone else just kept polluting" isn't an argument. Fighting climate change is becoming a political necessity. The world has almost internationally eradicated many undesirable things like mass slavery and chemical weapons. These are also political necessities to run a successful country.

In another 100 years, the idea of a country mass-burning fossil fuels will be akin to adding a Swastika to their national flag while adopting foreign policy of black slavery. Sure, they can try it, but it would be very politically and financially unpopular, and if they get too forceful then some superpower will interfere and stop them.

We could be 50 years closer to that goal. But we aren't. And that's due to the fossil fuel industry's intentional deception of the entire world.

Post reply on HN