Hacker News Reader

Comment by Merrill | Hacker News Reader

In 1982 we had just emerged from the decade where the 1973 Yom Kippur War oil crisis and the 1979 Iranian Revolution oil shock has us waiting in line for gasoline and filling only on odd/even days depending on whether we had odd or even license plates.

People were interested in producing more oil, not less. Even the Club of Rome could not get much traction with its "Limits to Growth" reports. It was also the middle of the Cold War and oil is a vital military supply - the Department of Defense is a huge consumer of refined oil products.

View on HN

They didn’t just withhold, they actively sowed disinformation

https://climateinvestigations.org/drilled-climate-change-den...

Are they doing it this very morning on popular forums?

Motorists rush to fill their gas tanks in Martinez, Calif., on Sept. 21, 1973.

During two separate oil crises in the 1970s, Americans from coast to coast faced persistent gas shortages as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, flexed its muscles and disrupted oil supplies.

In 1973 and again in 1979, drivers frequently faced around-the-block lines when they tried to fill up.

Drivers would go to stations before dawn or late at night, hoping to avoid the lines.

Odd-even rationing was introduced — meaning that if the last digit on your license plate was odd, you could get gas only on odd-numbered days. New Jersey and New York have just reintroduced the system.

Back in the '70s, some gas stations took to posting flags — green if they had gas, yellow if rationing was in effect and red if they were out of gas.

-NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2012/11/10/16479229...

> People were interested in producing more oil, not less.

That's not really a correct categorization. In fact the oil shock also drove serious interest (i.e. among "serious thinkers") in efficiency of consumption and distribution. The CAFE standards et. al. date from this period too.

It wasn't until the mid 90's, long after climate change became a public meme, that most of our government turned away from the idea.

The Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 was the first real vehicle pollution control act and it limited certain tailpipe emissions. However, it was one of the stupidist regulations ever, since it limited the proportion of unburned hydrocarbons, etc., in exhaust gas. The auto manufacturers did the rational thing and met the requirements by increasing the displacement of engines and pumping more air in a leaner mixture. The result was poor performing gas guzzlers and fleet mileage dropped from the mid 60s to the mid 70s. Thus, a decade of misguided federal clean air regulations made the oil crises much worse than they would have been.

The regulations should have limited grams of pollutant per ton-kilometer in order to require both less pollutants and better efficiency.

Efficiency improvements don't seem to be what the recent push against Exxon is about. In fact, according to Massachusett's lawsuit against them, claiming that efficiency improvements in hydrocarbon-powered vehicles reduce CO2 emissions is an illegal attempt to deceive the public because the vehicles still emit CO2.

Even in the mid-90's we were being taught that the coming global catastrophe related to oil was that we wouldn't be able to produce <<enough>>. Peak Oil theory that was accepted at the time said that the world would have already hit peak oil production by now.

Hope it was worth it.

For a few glorious moments we created a lot of value for the shareholders.

We industrialized the world, lifted billions out of poverty, and increased living standards. Why do people ignore the human progress's we've made. Folks really need to have some perspective.

Right. Oil is energy. A very energy dense, low volume, light weight, easily transportable form of energy.

It’s truly a liquid with magical properties that doesn’t have a green equivalent.

Now the ask is to make people’s lives uncomfortable? I doubt that’s going to fly.

My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins.

Energy makes our lives great.

People have figured out carbon capture; people haven't figured out economical carbon capture at scale yet (except for reforestation, which only partially helps), and it feels like we're a long way off. If you want to incentivize the creation of CCS while still penalizing the externality (cost to society of a carbon intensive economy), you'd probably want to ratchet up something like a carbon tax, and then give a rebate for performing something like carbon capture. That might create the economies of scale needed.

Petroleum and Sea Power -- https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/

Before airplanes, before tanks, the oil-fired battleship was a vast improvement over coal-fired battleships.

Also "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin is essential for understanding the history of oil.

> My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins.

Otherwise known as a tree

Trees are great. What I mean is engineering Trees that convert sunlight in a super efficient way and bear electroil fruits.

Electroil is an imaginary liquid that is as energy dense as oil but can be converted to electricity at almost a 100% efficiency

We know most of the oil is used to power engines. It’s not a very efficient chemical to kinetic energy conversion.

While it is energy, it is basically bottled sunshine.

What’s progress if then m/billions will die with climate change?

Had we acted on climate change in the 1980s, I doubt that would have made much difference on living standards in the end. And insofar as it would, it would have been worth it. Maybe we could have avoided the worst externalities of petrochem and consumerism-centered lifestyle.

Would that not have happened had we been more responsible with our greenhouse gas emissions?

While taking action and changing our ways and the use of some products to prevent further damage to the ozone layer, and even reverse damages.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I recently read almost exactly this talking point earlier today, about Exxon’s lies.

Almost word for word.

1) that’s weird. 2) we make trade off choices all of the time, it’s what society does. However, when one side argues that the trade offs don’t exist, or lie about them, that’s deeply immoral, especially when it is such a pervasive, existential threat.

“If you work this job I have for you in my mine, I know for a fact you’ll get mesothelioma, I won’t tell you, and in fact fight tooth and nail to convince you and everyone else that it’s perfectly safe. But now that you have mesothelioma, why don’t you think about the salary we paid you? How it supported your whole life? Maybe have a bit of perspective, huh?”

And all it cost was the inevitable total destruction of our climate and ecology! Yay!

Did you take an airplane anywhere in the meantime? Hope it was worth it, cause you knew about climate change when you got on it so many times you can't count them all.

People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society. Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocricy!

> People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society.

There's a big difference between refusing to burn massive amounts of oil and refusing to participate in any aspect of society. If burning oil like this is immoral for everyone, it is immoral for you; if it is not immoral for you, it is not immoral for anyone with your resources.

> Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocrisy!

Yes, their arguments are silly because of hypocrisy; pricing the poor out of energy is a hypocritical way for the world's rich to purport to make change.

You burn massive amounts of oil by being alive. Here you are, using a computer, using electricity, inside of a structure, eating food grown with artificial fertilisers and machinery, wearing clothes that were manufactured out of oil and then transported with oil.

Unless you are living naked in a forest, foraging for food, and shivering for warmth, and have done so since birth, you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse.

> you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse

I'm not going around judging people for ordinary oil use, I fully accept the costs of my actions, and I know that convenience is more important to me than reducing my carbon footprint, at some threshold. The hypocrisy comes from putting on an air of caring without putting in the work, as though it is somehow a moral accomplishment to impose the costs of your own lifestyle on others.

I also think it's pretty rich that this thread is nothing but name-calling, antagonism, and flamebait, and dang is nowhere to be seen; but I avoid all of this behaviour and somehow still get reprimanded because HNers can't help but be nasty to eachother in my threads.

No nastiness intended - I’m just underscoring they point that individual actions are at best well intentioned, at worst illusory, false hopes.

We need structural change mandating a low carbon economy, regulatory enforcement, and energy sources factored in throughout the supply chain to achieve this. This kind of effort is already working with RoHS and REACH - the technical infrastructure exists - but the political will isn’t quite there yet.

I fly, but I am working with the European Commission to make this kind of regulatory accountability a reality - similar to substance restrictions, it’ll start as an audibility measure, and will then grow to encompass enforcement and public transparency. Several of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers are on board. The automotive and aerospace sectors are trying to do their own things, as ever, but are making noises towards harmonisation.

So. Living in the forest isn’t the solution (although I do, and produce 100% of our energy and water, and 90% of our food, here), rather pushing for structural change through whatever means are available for you. I’m a techie. I’m helping define XML standards that might just save the world.

But I do fly.

Well, you should be ashamed of yourself. At the very least stop talking about climate change. Everyone's awareness is already raised.

What do you consider "putting in the work"?

What could an activist possibly do to convince you?

Plenty of climate activists have obstructed pipelines with direct action, have blockaded roads and blocked oil derricks; they have sacrificed time, money and in some cases their freedom when arrested. Meanwhile, you and others of your ilk sniff about "antagonism" and go about your day feeling smug that you're not a hypocrite because you "fully accept the costs of [your] actions" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

You say you "accept" the cost of your actions, but you leave it up to the rest of us to make sure you pay those costs.

How to convince me there is an existential threat requiring huge changes? Stop flying. Period. Stop eating meat. Period. Move into high density housing, and forego cars and just take public transportation or bike. That'll work for table stakes if you want to lecture me about the sacrifices I need to make. Put up or shut up.

Cool. Be sure to ask the next person who claims to be concerned about the national debt why they aren't paying 95% of their income to the government and living in a shoebox. I'd also suggest reading up on collective action problems.

Let me see if I have your argument down... one can ignore hypocrisy in personal behavior because collective actions are hard to do? Is that it? If so, it isn't a very strong argument. If not, what is your claim about personal hypocrisy?

My claim is that one shouldn't have to personally be a saint to be taken seriously when advocating for a policy position.

The original question was how climate activists could convince people, not lobby for policy. Of course non-saints can advocate policy, but animal rights activists who wear furs and leather should not expect to be taken all that seriously. Same for jet-setting climate activists.

Good news for you! Nobody with any power is taking them seriously! The activists have been ignored and derided for going on 25 years now, just like you hoped.

I'm sure that future generations (well, the fraction that don't die from climate-aggrivated famines, wars or diseases) will be pleased to know that wealthy software devs from the Era of 24/7 Electricity didn't ever have to feel uncomfortable about their choices.

No, you're going to ignore them anyway, since you're clearly not interested in the science. So why do it? They are better off using tools and resources in the short term to amplify their position and try and effect change.

Your crystal ball is cloudy. I am interested in the Science. I'm not interested in being hectored by some busybody who knows less about the Science than I do, espcially when their behavior is hypocritical.

Are you interested in the Science? Here's some test questions: how do you explain the lack of warming signal for the past 15 years in the gold standard temperature dataset from the USCRN? What percentage of change in global cloud cover would account for 2C of warming and how does it compare to the accuracy of the IPCC model ensemble in predicting changes in global cloud cover?

I'm not denying a warming climate, but I do think there are significant error bars surrounding calculations of Climate Sensitivity. Until someone can provide me with better answers than "what does it hurt to err on the side of caution" I'm going to be a skeptic of predictions of catastrophic warming.

Now are you going to ignore Science, or are you going to ask for hard evidence of extraordinary claims?

I don't know about any aspect but maybe the one by far most contributing to the problem they claim to care about would be a decent start. Flying on a private jet to a climate conference really does look bad.

a large section of the society lives on a tiny tiny portion of the world's wealth, and for them abandoning mass options to find alternatives would be really difficult in terms of cash and time.

Yet you participate in society. Curious!

Buy airplane carbon offsets: https://www.atmosfair.de/en/

So you are saying we cannot rely on personal choices but need to use regulation? I agree.

I can definitely count how many times I've flown in my adult life. But that is beside the point. Individual consumer choices could never have been enough to stop climate change. Many people still do not even believe it's a threat to human life as we know it.

I bet driving sedans/trucks powered by 4.4-8.2 liter (!) engines consuming 15-35 liters per 100km didnt help the situation either.

That is good context but it's not quite satisfying. It would be better if exxon was honest about the science and didnt try to obfuscate it with a coordinated campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com