Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by throwaway894345 » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

ryan93 wrote: post #204

throwaway894345 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never met anyone who could estimate with any degree of certainty how much a given climate policy (e.g., a $15/ton tax on carbon with border adjustments) would affect a given product or service (not even gasoline, which is a straightforward derivative of oil) because supply chains are so opaque. No doubt there are economists and other academics who try to get in the right ballpark, but even then the error margins…

Supply chains aren’t opaque. Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. Flights go up, food prices go up. Gasoline shoots up.

> Supply chains aren’t opaque.

So what's the carbon footprint of an XBox Series X? What about a 20 oz bottle of Trader Joe's brand extra virgin olive oil? If this information isn't readily available to consumers, it's "opaque" for all intents and purposes.

> Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially.

You give politicians far too much credit.

> Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off.

So cut a check to everyone making less than, say, $400K (or subsidize things if that's your kink). Perfectly feasible with carbon pricing. Moreover, after a while corporations will find greener ways to reduce costs. If you're a conservative or libertarian, welcome to the free market.

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

#262

Post by pempem » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #212

lhorie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if we're going to talk about forest and trees, consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument. If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament? Or more philosophically speaking…

There's nothing preventing us from living in a similarly 1-2% growing economy but with net zero GHG emissions. Yes, free resources lying around was amazing, but since then our economic surplus is abso-fucking-lutely enormous. We merely opt to allocate that on other things instead of decarbonizing. Eg. we spend it on silly things like paving half the world, giving everyone their own car, building small (actually gigan…

as far as I know, "we" are not paving the world. The average person is not spending millions and millions on a marketing plan to bring these ideas into the american and then global imagination.

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

#263

Post by ryan93 » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #261

ryan93 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply chains aren’t opaque. Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up energy prices pissed people off. Flights go up, food prices go up. Gasoline shoots up.

> Supply chains aren’t opaque. So what's the carbon footprint of an XBox Series X? What about a 20 oz bottle of Trader Joe's brand extra virgin olive oil? If this information isn't readily available to consumers, it's "opaque" for all intents and purposes. > Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. You give politicians far too much credit. > Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up…

Wrong every politician knows massive carbon taxes will be ultimately borne by consumers. What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country

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

#264

Post by drdeca » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 11:12 PM UTC

j_walter wrote: post #230

drdeca wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has a lower CO2 per capita emissions than the US. Of course, the environment doesn’t care about who has the most per capita emissions, just “cares” about the total emissions, but in terms of measuring efficiency of “how much CO2 needed to support the lifestyle of each person” it seems they currently have a better rate. Like, if you replaced a random subset of China with the population of the US, with another co…

The US has been trending down per capita for the last 50 years...but the problem is we have more people so the total output is higher. China's trend, as another poster said, is always going higher. https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?topic=Environment https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?topic=Environment

By “we” do you mean the US? Because the population of China is over 1 Billion, while the US population (as of 2019) is only 328 million.

Or do you mean “China” by “we”? Because in that case yes, the total emissions in China are greater than in the US, corresponding to their larger population (despite their per capita emissions being like half those of the US)

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

#265

Post by pope_meat » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 12:14 AM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #195

Hermitian909 wrote: post #100

A lot of comments here seem to be focusing on the fact that individuals use oil products beyond what is necessary for basic life and in fact do have some personal responsibility. This seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes society ends up in a situation where we need things that are not sustainable, like oil or coal. Producing those unsustainable products to meet the demands of society does not…

I mean, if we're going to talk about forest and trees, consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument. If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament? Or more philosophically speaking…

The democracy is more of an illusion, because the biggest factor in a particular policy being implemented is whether or not the wealth class supports it. If a bill has 70% support from the poor/middle class but 70% of the upper class oppose it...it's pretty likely to never pass. Reverse the numbers where 70% of the commoners don't support the bill, but 70% of the upper class do...well it's pretty likely to pass.

https://represent.us/action/no-the-problem/

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

#266

Post by refurb » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #68

refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Consumers knew burning gasoline and diesel created pollution 60 years ago. They could have push for clean alternatives but didnt. Don’t give them a pass.

So did the oil companies, and they still continued lobbying against environmental regulations and in favor of fossil fuels. So why are you giving them a pass?

I’m not. Why are you giving consumers a pass?

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

#267

Post by kumarvvr » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

I would have happily taken that blame, if not for the oil companies decades long and bad faith activities against climate change. Their lobbying, funding dubious studies, tactics of FUD, outright lying, etc.

Those must have consequences.

Why taxpayers are made to give billions to them every year is beyond understanding.

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

#268

Post by travisb » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #244

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 problem is that the choice presented is not, and will never be, "planet non-destroying iphone" versus "planet destroying iphone". The choice is between "iphone" or "nothing".

Understandably people choose "iphone", but that's doesn't negate that the choice exists. Yes it's very expensive to live a modern lifestyle with fewer direct O&G inputs. It's however really cheap to live a subsistence lifestyle in the middle of nowhere without all the environment wrecking conveniences; it's not near as comfortable though.

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

#269

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

ryan93 wrote: post #263

throwaway894345 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Supply chains aren’t opaque. So what's the carbon footprint of an XBox Series X? What about a 20 oz bottle of Trader Joe's brand extra virgin olive oil? If this information isn't readily available to consumers, it's "opaque" for all intents and purposes. > Every politician knows that energy costs effect everything substantially. You give politicians far too much credit. > Doesn’t take Nostradamus to know jacking up…

Wrong every politician knows massive carbon taxes will be ultimately borne by consumers. What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country

How can you argue this with a straight face? There are already many carbon pricing proposals which factor in a means-tested distribution of dividends, so clearly some politicians understand that it’s workable.

> What do you think oil gas profit margins are such that they can offset taxes for anyone making less than 400,000. Lol thats like 98% of the country

This is a remarkable misunderstanding of carbon pricing. It’s not limited to domestic oil and gas production, nor are the dividends intended to reimburse 100% of anyone’s tax obligation. The dividends only offset the burden imposed by the tax. Further still, a border adjustment will bring a lot of production back to the US because polluting countries like China will no longer be able to compete as effectively.

More importantly, if we don’t pass a climate tax, we’ll have a lot bigger problem than a burden on the consumer.

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

#270

Post by fomine3 » Fri, Aug 27, 2021, 6:56 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #260

rb12345 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 electroly…

Because you said that:

>> Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life.

> This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread.

Even if all energies become renewables, maybe some oil based products are still requirement (but not a big problem).