Hacker News Reader

Don't kid yourself. It's not "consumer demand" that's doing the harm, it's companies. Companies aren't interested in fixing this because fixing it is not profitable. But you can't blame that on the consumers.

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.

But what is profit? Companies selling at the price where customers think "Oh that's a great price! I'll buy it!". How to get a cheap price? Manufacture where labor is cheap. And/or where there are low carbon taxes. Or where the EPA has been told by the leader of the country to ignore pollution by your factory. And using the best-priced raw materials (more easily to get from suppliers that don't have to spend a lot of money complying with regulations...).

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"...

If we're going to climb the abstraction ladder of blame, then it's not the companies -- it's the consumption of energy and the release of various greenhouse gasses that's doing the harm, not the companies. But that's not a super-useful fact.

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.

Mmm, no. It's the companies.

    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.

If there is a lever to make things better, and I stop you from knowing about that lever, I have stopped things from getting better. You can't argue that the lever might not have made things better, given that I was the person who suppressed the choice itself.

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.

I'm pretty sure regardless of the lies that companies have told (obviously bad), the thing that is directly tied to climate change is the increase in the volume of greenhouse gasses. Now, I'm sure a lot of those executives are hot-heads, but I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions.

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 haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions.

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.

I also assume you've done research and seen these:

(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

and

    "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.

So, assuming you have done that research and have seen those, would you mind clarifying what you are saying?

> 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.

Companies only exist while there is some demand that they can fulfill. There's exceptions -- companies that manipulate the system. And of course we should expect that most companies are trying to manipulate the system to generally increase the demand for the goods they produce.

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 that demand is real.

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?

Birth control limits. We can be happy fat cats and solve global warming just by having fewer people.

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.

I have a rule. Anyone who advocates or otherwise wishes to impose systematic methods of extermination on other people should be the first people to be chosen to be subject to the system.

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.

I don't want more than 0-2 kids, so...

And you don't want other people to have any children. How hypocritical.

Fine, I only want 0 then. Argument won. I'd rather have 0 kids and fix humanity and global warming than have a kid. The fact that you'd rather nitpick my argument and call it hypocritical in the face of extinction...

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.

> consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away

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.

> the consumer demand for the goods those companies provide is unlikely to go away.

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.

and

    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.

> People consume energy and it's unlikely that we'll be able to reduce our usage meaningfully in the near future.

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.

and

    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.

> "You argue against the state having control"

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.