Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbh101 | Hacker News Reader

>which either emitted the carbon themselves or supplied carbon ultimately released by consumers and industry

Does it really matter which companies it is if we are all effectively using the products? We would be getting the oil from one company or another, and it is no secret that an oil-based economy releases emissions. This doesn't say much except "oil -> emissions" which to me seems like a given anyway.

View on HN

It does when those super-powerfull entities lobby to subvert Truth, buy politicians, policies, the public opinion to have their way with little regard for the public consequences just so nobody can mess with their profits. Those are not impartial/passive institutions, don't fool yourself.

"Heede concedes that the responsibility is shared. "I as a consumer bear some responsibility for my own car, etcetera. But we're living an illusion if we think we're making choices, because the infrastructure pretty much makes those choices for us."

It's useful in that now we don't have to blame ourselves for contributing to carbon emissions but instead get to blame others for the carbon emissions we contribute to.

Contrary to the bad point you were making, yes. The article specifically brought up the view "when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible". They went further to explain you are responsible, but these corporations have more obligation and responsibility to cut down emissions.

"Don't bust the pot smokers, but the dealers."

Or don't tax tobacco companies[1] for the ill health effects on smokers but the smokers, in the form of health premiums and life insurance premiums, who choose to smoke despite knowing the detrimental health effects.

The thing is, if we want to life a modern lifestyle (i.e. refrigeration, transportation, medicine, etc.) we need energy and at this point in time, we don't have a viable alternative to switch over to tomorrow. As a society we can incentivize alternative and can move away from these sources, but it is disingenuous to frame it as these are the companies ultimately responsible for carbon emissions --we all are.

[1]Discounting big tobacco's previous lies about their product's health impact.

Neither me nor the article shifted blame and both acknowledge everyone is responsible. So. I large to the bystander effect, nothing changes until someone is pointed out and assigned.

Nothing changed with tobacco until they were assigned blame. Nothing will change with oil if we're all bystanders. That's the point of the article.

You and I didn't effectively bribe governments the world over spanning decades to keep emissions standards from having any teeth; many of these companies have. You and I haven't propagated climate change denial on a worldwide scale; many of these companies have.

We can certainly discuss individual culpability, but the only reason a significant portion of the populace believes in climate change denial is because there has been a massive effort to discredit climate science. Frankly, it's terrifying how effective they have been. Fully half of our government (the Republican half) seems to genuinely believe climate change is nothing to worry about, even while their states are flooding and in the midst of historic droughts.

It is tough to expect consumers to consider every single possible externality that a product may have. The environmental impact is not always that obvious, and certainly not intuitive to most people.

At the very least companies should be required to be honest about negative impacts so consumers can make an informed choice.

So, the oil companies get blamed for the practices of the shipping industry[1]. That seems a pretty stupid way to list emission producers. Just another blame them, don't blame me style report.

1) http://www.nature.com/news/pollution-three-steps-to-a-green-...

This gives the original sources of burnt carbon concrete identities. As the article states, the carbon didn't come from "everyone", but from specific someone.

A freak storm wreacks havoc? It's quite different to cuss civilization in general, or, to be able to say "Damn you shell for wrecking 1/30th part of my farm!".

Does this make legal difference is an all together different thing.

Our civilization is made from concrete entities, not abstractions. Abstractions at worst leave root cause analysis undone and let bad players continue (e.g. corruption: 'everyone takes bribes' v.s. 'I have concrete evidence judge Jones took a bribe of million dollars').

It says that change is easier than it might seem.

I don't think so. This at best confirms there is a power-law distribution in the oil sector. The change is still "move our civilization off of oil products" because it isn't just these companies producing emissions but all their customers too, which isn't particularly "new" news.

A smaller number of companies is still easier to regulate than a larger number.

(note that my reply was detached from a deleted comment where someone asked what the possible use of this information could be)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com