Yeah, let’s only focus on the production problem. There is totally no demand for oil or plastics. I assume you are typing this on a laptop or cellphone that has plastic parts.
I assert that we can produce plastics without conducting massive deception campaigns that threaten the very future of our economy, the survival of many cities and states, and mass migration across the globe to adapt to new climate.
It is convenient to blame the oil companies, but the fault lies in all of us who live in a democracy but did not prioritize regulating carbon emissions.
If you doubt that it is our fault, look at the recent Swiss referendum that failed:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/swiss-voters-decide-pest...
It was a referendum in a well educated, first world nation, in 2021 and they could not muster the willpower to solve the problem.
The problem is not the oil and gas companies, it is all of us.
Not nearly as much as there is for energy
Be the first, and give up all modern medicine, modern technology, plastics, etc. Nothing wrong with innovating out of fossil fuels, but you just seem to be pointing blame.
Everything carries a fossil fuel burden with it, the change cannot come from individuals.
Apportioning blame isn't even particularly useful compared to just fixing the problem.
It's one thing to provide a product honestly. It's another to provide a product dishonestly. This entire post is about the dishonesty, so just forgetting about that dishonesty and not addressing is seems odd.
Why would executives put themselves at risk for nothing? Why would they spend so much money for nothing? Why lie if the lie doesn't benefit them?
The truth is that these disinformation campaigns to this day are killing our transition away from fossil fuels. They have spawned a political movement that is far more extreme than the publicly stated opinions of the fossil fuel companies.
One prime example of this disinformation campaign is repeated by you:
> let's not even get started on the ecological footprint of batteries.
This myth that batteries are somehow worse than fuel is exactly the type of disinformation that fossil fuel companies manufacture and that others spread, seemingly willingly, because of their tribal politics motivations. You don't know the footprint of batteries for electrical cars. It's certainly no worse than what we use to make the rest of a car. I've spent hours combing the web for concrete ecological impacts. The only concrete thing anybody talks about are not ecological, but social. Indigenous people in South America not getting compensated for their land. Cobalt mining from artisanal, unaccounted mines using child labor. But the ecological footprint is a tiny shadow of all the steel, copper, etc. that goes into al the rest of society.
Have you heard of open-pit mines? I would call the ecological damage of that much higher than a comparable oil drilling site.
I have nothing against electric vehicles, or progress away from CO2 emitters. But EVs are a half-backed solution.
And EVs might even be net-negative for climate change. What do you think mining equipment runs on? A shit-ton of diesel. The largest cost of a gold mine is energy - diesel. I just think the mental gymnastics people use to justify the smaller ecological impact EVs is ridiculous. Heck, I even own a Tesla.
You have a huge bias against EVs, you call them a "half-baked solution" without any qualifications. This is a very subjective judgement that is contradicted by the large number of EVs that are replacing every day usage for people, for commuting and road trips and every aspect of life that requires a vehicle.
It's beyond ridiculous to claim that EVs be a net negative for climate change. Even the fossil fuel PR machine isn't so bold to make such ridiculous counterfactua claims. At least the people paid to lie for fossil fuel companies say that it takes until many tens of thousand is miles until an EV makes up is carbon impact, but even that is a bald-faces lie.
So I'm short, you are manufacturing ridiculous claims, without any substance, that force people to deal with extra BS and counter your lies in the public sphere. Your comments here are a drain on the discussion, fact free accusations without any merit that you are using to naysay EVs and simultaneously out of the other side of your mouth say that you have nothing against them and even own one.
This is classic FUD from the old days. If you are not paid for your efforts, you are underselling yourself. Spreading such misinformation earns many people a paycheck.
It’s widely known the environmental impact of EVs. If you want to make a real difference, look elsewhere.
If I am mistaken, please point out the statistic, or any concrete real world damage that is worse than the alternative.
We punish the corrupt in order to make the decision to be corrupt in future more expensive for the people considering it. A culture of total impunity doesn't help with "the problem."
If you drink water from a corrupt company, by all means try to get the corruption fixed but don't blame them that we live in a water based society.
They also actively lie about oil usage effects on environment, and lobby governments to not only to allow them to continue destruction, but also give them subsidies for it.
If the demand was irresponsible, then someone has failed to act in addition to the suppliers who are essentially just looking to capitalise on an opportunity in a socio-economic system where to succeed is to capitalise on any legal, available opportunity.
Governing bodies have known for decades that the consumption of fossil fuels was both unsustainable and detrimental to the health of the environment.
And yet no consequential action has been taken, for a number of understandable, yet ultimately wrong reasons.
Governments will argue that the technology wasn't there yet to make a transition away from fossil fuels, but money could have been invested to ensure that it was there.
Skip to today, one may retort that the technology is here now, and when governments are reticent and continue to drag their heels — that is perhaps when shadier motivations behind executive inaction emerge.
I do not speak as an environmentalist by any means, my net contributions to encouraging social change in this regard are practically zero, I've never made the effort.
But over the years I have been alive I have seen this problem growing and the debate becoming increasingly protracted and increasingly unhelpful.
The time for debate, inquiry and questions of accountability is not now, as this process will simply result in the burial of the actual problem facing our species and, realistically, very little punitive action against the most significant culprits.
Indeed, what point is there in trying to point the finger at suppliers meeting demands and governments seeking to remain in government by giving people what they want? It's a problem to which the solution is political suicide that any subsequent regime can likely overturn.
Like financial crises, no one supports change until the proverbial shit hits the fan. This is partially because the general population do not understand the nature or severity of the problem, the timescale, or even believe the problem exists. I would argue that this is not accidental — lots of powerful institutions and people have undoubtedly had a hand in making sure the populace do not understand or take an active interest in problems like environmental and financial crises.
This is because the existence and power of these institutions and people would be threatened by a shift in the status quo.
The time for decisive action was at least a decade ago, but there's no harm in starting now — it just means that the transition to alternative energy sources must be more abrupt and more investment must be allocated to remedial technologies that can work towards undoing at least some portion of the damage we have done to our biosphere.
Let historians and the next generations worry about whose fault it was. It is more important to secure for the next generation a sustainable and habitable future, than it is to look back at past hubris and wonder where it went wrong.
If you want to change it, you need to change the economic incentives of the all the actors involved. This includes straightforward measures that are already exist but need to be tuned up, like forcing them to recognize the negative externalities they introduce through operation more directly (carbon tax).
Of course, to the extent those actors have tried to downplay or mislead the general public as to the extent of those negative externalities, they have full culpability I'm happy to condemn them for that. But let's not pretend they are immoral for simply existing.