Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#21

Post by sremani » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #20

sremani wrote: post #4

Outrage is not the answer, if you live in OECD countries you have a massive footprint that rivals villages of developing countries. So do something about it. No, your pre-order of Model 3 that is going to come 3 years down the pike, does not put a dent in your carbon footprint. It is one small step, the roads your Tesla drives on needs petro-chemicals, so do those perfectly manicured french fries. Oil industry is gre…

Do you have any practical suggestions or did you just want to poke fun at EV drivers? BTW, Asphalt is 99% recycled (yes, even the binder). http://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.php?option=com_content&...

I am guilty of being that EV driver myself, but I meant Asphalt is a petro product.

edit: its more about pervasiveness of petro-chemicals we hardly acknowledge, all the while still building cities and subsections for Cars instead of humans.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#22

Post by pitchka » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #17

jonknee wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would devastate the global economy.

Using petrochemicals has already devastated the global economy. We will spend trillions to attempt to fix the damage that has already been caused, when exactly $0 is what we should have to spend. We are causing a mass extinction event on the planet and will never be able to undo all the physical damage done. We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is…

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones, habitat destruction, extinction of species and deforestation.

It all comes down to human greed, complacency and conveniency. We all like flesh, we all like speedy travel. If we sought for the long-term we would reduce or abolish the use completely, on our own.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#23

Post by oldmanjay » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #17

jonknee wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would devastate the global economy.

Using petrochemicals has already devastated the global economy. We will spend trillions to attempt to fix the damage that has already been caused, when exactly $0 is what we should have to spend. We are causing a mass extinction event on the planet and will never be able to undo all the physical damage done. We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is…

Your basic premise is not terribly convincing. The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed.

I understand how difficult it is to hate people who have things (your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling) and also want to express that hatred in a morally defensible way, but I don't think hyperbolic lies are as useful as you want them to be.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#24

Post by minikites » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

The harder problem to solve is social, I think. The planet is literally unable to support 7 billion people living a USA/Western Europe lifestyle. Who's going to be the one to tell all the people in developing economies, "Sorry, but you can't have those things that we have."

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#25

Post by galo2099 » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #8

> When do we hold someone responsible for a harm? What if the harm is climate change? We all burned oil in our cars. We didn't make an effort to carpool because it wasn't convenient. Skipped days riding our bike to work because it's too cold, etc. To me holding the blame entirely on the oil industry is akin to persecuting prostitutes for sex crime.

It's all about power. Prostitutes do not have power. They do not buy the government. They do not run ad campaigns saying that fidelity is a hoax.

The oil industry has a lot of power. They even have their own party in american politics, the GOP or Grand Oil Party.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#26

Post by chris_wot » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

dsp1234 wrote: post #18

chris_wot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you deliberately obfuscate, falsify documents, spend millions on misleading advertising, attempt to buy off critics or fund massive lobbying of law makers to make legislation become more favourable to yourself and increase your profitability?

Combining the two, would still have done this: "We didn't make an effort to carpool because it wasn't convenient." if the oil companies had not done this: "deliberately obfuscate, falsify documents, spend millions on misleading advertising, attempt to buy off critics or fund massive lobbying of law makers" If you think the answer is obviously yes, then also please think about the dramatic turn in smoking statistics s…

Um. I'm having difficulty parsing your question. Are you saying we wouldn't have behaved in the way we did if petrol companies didn't do all those dreadful things?

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#27

Post by cryptoz » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

oldmanjay wrote: post #23

cryptoz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using petrochemicals has already devastated the global economy. We will spend trillions to attempt to fix the damage that has already been caused, when exactly $0 is what we should have to spend. We are causing a mass extinction event on the planet and will never be able to undo all the physical damage done. We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is…

Your basic premise is not terribly convincing. The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed. I understand how difficult it is to hate people who have things (your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather tell…

> The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse.

Many species on Earth are indeed in very serious danger of extinction due to human-caused climate change. Here is a paper in Nature discussing this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14712274

> The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed.

I disagree with this. We could have industrialized and gained those measurable advantages without causing all of this destruction. That's what this HN link is about: why did we do this? Partly because the rich and wealthy people controlled the public's understanding of the risks in a way that would keep their money flowing at the detriment of our health.

> your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling

How is this unrelated? The pursuit of wealth and the greed of the oil executives is directly related to this disaster. I do not "hate people that have things". I have lots of things. I do, however, hate people who are so greedy as to pollute our planet and cause runaway global greenhouse effects purely for their own gain.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#28

Post by dsp1234 » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #26

dsp1234 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combining the two, would still have done this: "We didn't make an effort to carpool because it wasn't convenient." if the oil companies had not done this: "deliberately obfuscate, falsify documents, spend millions on misleading advertising, attempt to buy off critics or fund massive lobbying of law makers" If you think the answer is obviously yes, then also please think about the dramatic turn in smoking statistics s…

Um. I'm having difficulty parsing your question. Are you saying we wouldn't have behaved in the way we did if petrol companies didn't do all those dreadful things?

There are certainly a lot of 'not's in the statements, so I apologize for the confusion. I was trying to keep the previous comments pure.

At a basic level:

Would we have taken the same actions, if the oil industry had not taken the same actions?

If someone thinks the answer the question is, 'obviously yes', then I'm suggesting they look at the results of the revelations of the same actions by the tobacco industry.

If someone thinks anything else, I'm not making any specific statement.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#29

Post by noir_lord » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

sremani wrote: post #4

Outrage is not the answer, if you live in OECD countries you have a massive footprint that rivals villages of developing countries. So do something about it. No, your pre-order of Model 3 that is going to come 3 years down the pike, does not put a dent in your carbon footprint. It is one small step, the roads your Tesla drives on needs petro-chemicals, so do those perfectly manicured french fries. Oil industry is gre…

I live in a flat that is suitable for living alone, I don't drive, I cycle everywhere except when I need to go really long distances in which case I use public transport.

I buy nearly all my food from the local market most of which comes from farms within a hundred miles, I minimise energy consumption, most of the furniture I buy is good second hand stuff, I rarely buy clothes and everything I do own would fit on a single 3ft rack in a closet (and does).

I recycle as much waste as I can, I don't have a garden so that restricts some options in terms of growing food/composting.

I take showers not baths.

My desktop is 5 years old with upgrades, my laptop is 3 years old, I've no current plans to replace either.

I don't do any of this for purely ecological reasons (though that's a nice benefit) but because I have everything I need to live comfortably and I don't put much premium on expensive possessions, I want to own stuff not be owned by stuff.

Not really sure how much more I can do given that I rent so major energy upgrades aren't really a possibility.

Re: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

#30

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

sremani wrote: post #4

Outrage is not the answer, if you live in OECD countries you have a massive footprint that rivals villages of developing countries. So do something about it. No, your pre-order of Model 3 that is going to come 3 years down the pike, does not put a dent in your carbon footprint. It is one small step, the roads your Tesla drives on needs petro-chemicals, so do those perfectly manicured french fries. Oil industry is gre…

It's not that outrage is not the answer, it is that there is no "the answer." Becoming a renewable and sustainable civilization is not something that will happen in 30 years, and we would be lucky to be at 100% by 2100.

We need electric cars and grid level storage to be able to fully replace fossil fuels. To even get there we have to be realistic about energy needs. I don't like fracking but I accept it as a lesser evil to King coal. I wouldn't want to live next to a nuclear plant but I understand how impossible it will be to continue energy consumption growth - renewables aside - without significant investment in nuclear energy or a staggering growth in fossil fuel use. We cannot pretend that in one or even two generations we will be magically powered by the sun and the wind any more than we can make believe that the world has unlimited fossil fuel resources and that we can burn them without consequence for ever and ever.

Climate change and sustainability is the rare beast that can only be felled by a death of a thousand cuts.