31–40 of 238 posts
Fossil fuels caused the greatest progress in history of mankind, and resulted in decimation of disease, famine and poverty. Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).
I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed…
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your n…
The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed…
I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed…
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms That's a huge understatement. They have actively sabotaged green initiatives all along. They have stopped green policies, and green policies is and has always been the ONLY way forward, you can't put shit like this on individuals.
When I've lived in Russia, I've donated to Green Peace and WWF, because they helps a lot to save Nature Reserves, oppose predatory laws which allows to exploit Protected Areas without any ecological control, they sued factories which dump industrial waste into soil and water without any treatment, etc.
Now I'm living in Europe and I don't want to give money to Green Peace, because their agenda is not about nature reserves and industrial waste treatment, but, first, anti-nuclear-plant and then anti-travel, antu-car-ownership, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed some reforms, but isn't the elephant in the room the 8 billion people that still need to be fed, clothed, housed, and entertained? Imagine how much progress would have been made had Shell et al. not buried research for decades showing the harms of fossil fuels and aggressively lobbied against alternative forms of energy. This is like saying its not Comcast's fault that your n…
I have a 1 Gbps internet connection at home, for which I'm paying $10 per month. I live in Romania. The US and its companies are not the only ones on this earth, so unless you're going to claim some sort of conspiracy that prevented global progress, I'm not buying it.
I understand this is cringe, but: > one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet Do any of you believe this narative? Honest question: isn't the destruction of the planet due to the 8 billion people that have to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained? Aren't fossil fuels directly responsible for the industrial revolution and people not starving anymore? I get that "Big Oil" might have delayed…
This sentence fragment greatly understates the impact they have had. It is clear that you consider it to be a narrative and are deliberately deflecting attention elsewhere. Both are valid statements, it is not a binary situation. It is not one over the other, and deliberately polarising situations does not help anyone. It only serves to further hinder the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? And now where do we go from here? Decisions about the future shouldn’t be based on some weird tribalistic pride about your fav energy source’s vibes or the historical ethics of it. It’s fucking oil, it isn’t going to get hurt feelings.
[flagged]
Fossil fuels caused the greatest progress in history of mankind, and resulted in decimation of disease, famine and poverty. Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).
Ah, the Dolchstoßlegende of nuclear energy again. The Green movement was an absolute fringe group without power that never influenced any decision regarding nuclear energy in the 20th century.
Instead, Shell—a massive oil company and one of the many entities directly responsible for destroying our planet—wants you all to know just how rad its fossil fuel products are, and even made a whole Fortnite world for you to enjoy! Sure, spreading oil propaganda and trying to influence policies despite very well knowing of the negative consequences is bad, maybe even evil behavior. But making it sound like Shell sin…
And any attempts to move away from that paradigm are heavily lobbied against by entities like Shell. It's hard to change habits, even harder to get an entire culture to change, and harder still when the change is being actively countered.