We are already screwed and we do not have enough time to fix things. Embrace the suck.
Change is not difficult really, but the majority do not want to make deep sacrifices and would rather be a happy fat cat.
The 90s dotcom boom took some vaguely 'smart' people, then gave them enough money that they are the richest people in the world. These people now sit on their asses and donate pitiful amounts of their money away (Bezos donating 30,000 to a couple of children is the equivalent of an investment banker tossing a spare 5p coin at a homeless person. Sure, it's better than nothing, but it's less than the bare minimum that we should expect. For comparison, if less than two thirds of the 1.1bn raised for the Notre Dame were donated to Flint, Michighan, then the people there could be drinking clean water by now...) to keep people appeased while the people working for them (in the case of, say, Amazon) literally starve and faint from exhaustion, and get less than minimum wage for it.
I do not think you mean 'the majority'. I think you mean, the three bus-loads of ~90 CEOs and middle executives that, if they happened to crash/explode, would literally solve climate change overnight.
The report found that more than half of global industrial
emissions since 1988 – the year the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change was established – can be traced to just 25
corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical
emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is
large enough to have contributed significantly to climate
change, according to the report.
A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel
companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming
decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be
worthless in the face of international action on climate
change and advances in renewables – in turn posing
substantial threats to investor returns.No matter how many executives you propose to eliminate, the consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away. People consume energy and it's unlikely that we'll be able to reduce our usage meaningfully in the near future.
If we want to meaningfully reduce energy usage it's going to take organized collective efforts around the planet.
consumer demand is a very artificial phenomena that requires a massive propaganda campaign to keep it alive. I am talking about marketing of course. All we have to do really is to ban advertisement (wishful thinking of course). Without it consumer demand will wane super quick.
There wouldn't be consumer demand if the companies in question hadn't covered up the damage that they do. You can hide behind 'consumer demand' but that really is just a meaningless term, practically speaking, through what is almost a total control of the major press outlets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch), and rabid advertising, the consumer can be manipulated to like or dislike anything. Especially if you suppress certain details like "buying oil is killing the planet". It isn't like the companies in question didn't have 40 years to diversify into sustainable energy sources.
You argue against the state having control, but at least if that were the case the state could have enforced a gradual tapering off and eventual stoppage of these types of energy. Unfortunately we no longer have the time to do that.
In fact, you are using exactly the same arguments that the oil industry used, to cover up climate change.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
Privately, these companies did not dispute the links
between their products, global warming, and ecological
calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the
connections.
Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for
their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that
the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests
not with the energy industry, but with governments and
consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil
executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had
not later lied about climate change and actively
prevented governments from enacting clean-energy
policies.
The only reason people consume unsustainable energy is because the alternative is expensive, and people are not paid properly enough to be able to afford such luxuries as a clean conscience.
See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-ne...
The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or
more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government
aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of
the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk
of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.
It's time that America comes to understand that many of
the nation's biggest disparities, from education and
life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to
economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a
Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty.Do I? I've reread what I wrote and don't think I made any such statements -- but if I did, that was _not_ my intention. State and planetary intervention seems to be our only way forward.
> The only reason people consume unsustainable energy is because the alternative is expensive
Yes, absolutely. And this is further complicated by the emissions that developing nations tend to output as they advance and grow. As long as coal remains as cheap and as sought-after by developing nations we will have a hard time reigning in the harmful emissions.
Richness is resources per person. Resources on the planet are approximately fixed with occasional (large) increases from tech advances. The divisor, on the other hand, can be changed from 7 billion to 1 million. We would all be 7 thousand times richer. I would immediately own 5 abandoned Ferraris, and there would be hardly a need for any speed limits.
Here's hoping for WW3, mass infertility, etc.
You want people in the boat to resort to cannibalism? Ok, you're first to be eaten.
You want to throw someone out of the hot air balloon? Ok, you first. Jump.
If you want to serilize people? Ok. You first. Go to a doctor and demand to be sterilized. If they won't do it, either find a doctor that will, or grab a knife and do it yourself.
You want a second plague? Ok. You first. Volunteer for Doctors Without Borders, go to a plague-ridden country, and deliberately infect yourself with something horrible.
You want to bomb people? Ok, go join Doctors Without Borders, or another aid effort, and help bomb victims. Put yourself at risk of being bombed. Join the millitary and put yourself on the other end of the shelling.
People rarely wish for these things to happen to them. Be the exception.
It's like...God is on a mountain with his arms raised in a Y saying "I have the secret to you're humanity:" and you say "ACTUALLY IT'S YOUR".
I don't even.
The obvious solution is to make it less profitable not to address these problems but that means passing crippling regulations that will result in companies going under, markets shrinking, jobs being lost and products vanishing. In other words: political suicide.
And it doesn't even take consumers protesting about these things, it's enough if a few billionaires or megacorps use their political power to push back on these attempts of "regulatory overreach" or whatever riles up the conservative vote today.
Literally noone in a position necessary to do something against the climate crisis has any incentive to do anything meaningful to stop it.
If only price labels are more something along the lines of "Price: 300 USD, 3kg of CO2, 400l of polluted water, 40ha of ruined farmland"...
We could globally outlaw capitalism, and I'd fully expect that the resource demand would just be replaced by governments (as is basically the case with China Coal & Saudi Oil) providing these materials since people are going to riot if you take them away.
Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week, that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live? That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day? These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels.
Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for
their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued
that the “main burden” of addressing climate change
rests not with the energy industry, but with
governments and consumers. That argument might have
made sense if oil executives, including those from
Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate
change and actively prevented governments from
enacting clean-energy policies.
Alternatively, if tax day is in two months, and you do not know tax day exists, and I know, and not only do I deliberately choose not to tell you, but I deliberately stop you from knowing, then I am responsible for you not filing your taxes on time.
> Like how do you foresee the average person reacting if they can only get 5 gallons of fuel per week,
We would have had 40 years to change to electric cars and heating, so it wouldn't matter.
> that their food selection is reduced to what's available in a 50-mile radius of where they live?
Likewise the food transport industry would have had 40 years to transition their infrastructure to a sustainable state. Indeed, we might be using primarily hydroponics-based agriculture at this point.
> That they can't have air conditioning for more than a few hours a day?
The places that require air conditioning are sunny. Indeed, the entirety of america's energy requirements could be supplied by a tiny square of solar panels in the desert, so I do not see why in 40 years, air conditioning couldn't have matured to a state where it not only requires less energy, but also was sustainable.
> These are near-apocalyptic scenarios that we're talking about if reduce our energy usage to sustainable levels.
I mean, they are now, but as I have stated repeatedly, we could have had 40 years to prepare. Now we're 2 days before tax day, scrambling to prepare for the worst, because we never really had enough warning to set us on a path to the best.
Of course a time machine would make things easier, and of course it would be easier if there hadn't been systemic lies and cover-ups. But we cannot control that. In the context of what we're discussing -- it doesn't matter if you completely eliminate all 100 of the cited companies overnight, the demand will still exist for the services that require energy that renewables cannot currently supply the demand for.
I assume you read my post at the top and saw this:
A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel
companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming
decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be
worthless in the face of international action on climate
change and advances in renewables – in turn posing
substantial threats to investor returns.
(https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
and
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...)
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in
the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede
at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado
said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the
ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just
one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or
two."
Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in
the past 25 years – well past the date when governments
and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas
emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing
dangerous climate change.
Many of the same companies are also sitting on
substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are
burned – puts the world at even greater risk of
dangerous climate change.
> But we cannot control that.
At the very least there should be accountability that the deliberate, malicious actions of these (more or less) 90 people have put the entire species at risk. The point here is that they had enough warning and time to diversify to nuclear and renewable energy, but instead of doing that they covered it up and put us in an impossible position.
But that demand is real. This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change.
I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive.
Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable.
No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in.
Regulation and enforcement are the only tools we've developed that seem to have any chance of working -- and we need to seriously improve upon those tools so that we can better enact change on a global level.
It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand.
But you just stated that that demand is not real. That most companies artificially manipulate demand, implies that a majority of the demand is not real.
Furthermore, talking generally as you are doing, obscures the point. The demand for unsustainable, literal-killing-the-planet-and-the-species energy, would not exist if it were not for a handful of companies covering up scientific research, and lobbying politically to ensure that they are never held accountable.
> This whole thread started on the idea of executives dying to end climate change
>
> I'm simply stating that idea is both outrageous and offensive.
Why? I find the idea of the death of anyone, revolting. I am usually the first person to argue against the death penalty. In this specific instance, I find it completely and utterly inexcusable that these people chose to enable the death of billions of people, to put entire ecosystems and millions of species at risk, and trillions of lifeforms, just so they could continue maintaining a profit.
If a large amount of countries around the world, and states in America, can agree that it is just to put someone to death for harming someone, then the same people should unequivocally accept it's use in this instance. This isn't just a bad thing for the people to have done, there really is no other example in history. The number of deaths from the Holocaust literally pales in comparison to the amount of death that those individuals have tangibly, provably manipulated, all for the sake of profit.
If that comparison feels far-fetched, please remember that it is not over-the-top to state that the actions these people have taken, and continue to take through their inaction, are literally causing a mass-extinction.
If I conspired to throw the asteroid that caused the KT Extinction at the Earth, I would be held culpable, no?
Of course, perhaps it would be better to keep them alive, strip them of their wealth, and let them ride out the disaster they have created along with everyone else.
> Yes, companies have done bad things. Yes, they should be held accountable.
That's past tense. They have not just done bad things, they are continuing to do bad things, and they are manipulating things so that they will, for the foreseeable future continue to do 'bad' things.
> No, reparations from individual companies will not get us out of the situation we're in.
I agree. The companies cannot do anything to save us at this point. They should be seized by the state and put on a path to renewable energy, or otherwise shut down.
> It's not the companies. It's the emissions, and a severe lack of regulation and guidance to curb them and those factors which increase their demand.
Oh I see, so nobody is responsible then? Or are you trying to argue that the state is responsible, or that the people are responsible?
Amazon pays no less than double the minimum working wage in the US.
We are still screwed, I'll give you that, but the degree to which we are screwed and how fast is something we can influence, and that does matter.
I keep reading this, yet nobody bothers to actually explain how it supposedly failed?
> France demonstrates that a switch to nuclear, if others choose to go that route, is viable.
France didn't "switch" to nuclear, in the 70s they spent $330 billion of public money to build their nuclear fleet.
Since then the reactor fleet has been aging, due to a lack of private investments, and a lack of funds for decommissioning is also a very real problem, not just for France [0] but across to the EU [1].
Which is one of the reasons why France is also considering to phase out nuclear reactors, at least in part [2].
[0] https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/04/france-...
[1] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-nuclear/eu-short-of...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...
It's unfortunate, but such mistakes are far from inevitable in the policies of other countries. The will was there, but hard lessons had to be learned.
Yes France's nuclear power is going to be expensive long term, but French per capita greenhouse gas emissions are incredibly low. About 2/3 of the EU average and a bit over a quarter of the US. Factor in any kind of reasonable carbon tax cost, then combine it with an increased contribution from renewable, and French nuclear starts to look quite viable.
Yes, the EEG made electricity more expensive [0], it also didn't help that energy companies abused regulatory loopholes to fill their own pockets.
But nobody can expect large scale changes like this to be free, somebody gotta pay for this and I'm absolutely willing to pay for this because in the long-term it will be worth it.
It's also my understanding that electricity exports ain't a one-way street between France and Germany, electricity exports and imports are on a pretty similar level [1].
Imho the real problem currently is a lack of proper storage technologies and infrastructure, so we can fully utilize our renewable capabilities, but I'm hopeful that we will also get there.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...
Yeah, I suppose a lot of the extra costs here end up in some company pockets - but if this causes people to be more responsible with their power usage then that's an acceptable trade-off for me.
As for the second part: I know a lot of grid-balancing happens cross-border in the EU, but I didn't look up numbers, so there is not a lot I can objectively say on that topic. Personally, I pay a little more for "clean" energy. I know I still get the same mix like anyone else, but my energy supplier has to buy my personal demand from more eco-friendly sources. Yes, it is still "a spit in an empty pool", but that's still better than taking a dump in the river on bathing day just because everyone else is doing it.
Source : https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1025396660615237638
France is a net exporter to Germany since at least 2011 : https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm?source=de_pf&year=...
France as Germany are the 2 world top exporter : http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/
You can see here in last july and august that france mostly export to germany : https://i.imgur.com/99f8stA.png Source : https://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/eco2mix-echanges-comme...
Yes, France exports power, but not TO Germany. It exports ACROSS Germany to other countries. The power gets there using the German grid, but not consume in Germany. The French power isn't needed in the German grid - the only time French power is used in the German grid might be short times when there is surplus production which needs to be absorbed in Europe.