Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hermitian909 | Hacker News Reader

A lot of comments here seem to be focusing on the fact that individuals use oil products beyond what is necessary for basic life and in fact do have some personal responsibility. This seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees.

Sometimes society ends up in a situation where we need things that are not sustainable, like oil or coal. Producing those unsustainable products to meet the demands of society does not make the producers solely responsible for any side effects. What is immoral is trying to artificially delay the transition to more sustainable alternatives or to socialize the costs of doing business.

Oil companies have repeatedly run well funded PR campaigns with the explicit goal of discrediting arguments that more sustainable energy technology was necessary despite knowing them to be false. Similarly, they have lobbied hard to ensure that when the impacts of oil to the environment are larger than expected, society picks up the tab. This lets them be more reckless with our communal environmental resources.

View on HN

I mean, if we're going to talk about forest and trees, consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument. If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament? Or more philosophically speaking, whose fault is it that people living under democratic rules don't challenge the efficacy of their governments? Or, perhaps more importantly, why?

I think the problem with finger pointing is that it distracts from meaningful introspection. I think there are far deeper connections between oil and consumption than the "I do my part" crowd seems to realize, from the economics of the logistics industry, all the way down to the fundamental assumption that modern growth-oriented economics and consumption are even "normal" (compared to, say, how native tribes lived eons ago). In other words, merely being aware of the need for unsustainable resources in various cases doesn't fully detach us from the reality that the system we rely on to live is broken.

Sometimes I contemplate the "weird" trees in this forest: people investing into off-grid living, or people stocking up bunkers, or isolated tribes in the middle of nowhere; and I wonder if thinking about regular society in terms of scalable homogeneous solutions isn't in a way similar to breeding cavendish bananas - highly optimized in one specific metric, but susceptible to being wiped out globally by a single unforeseen threat (or in our case, by one of the many potential global catastrophes that scientists have been warning about)

If darwinism applies to civilizations, things ain't looking great for the vast majority of us precisely because we're stuck in a rut talking about ifs-and-buts instead of physically adapting to the logical end state of the trends we see in scientific data.

This could be asteroid that kills us

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

Concentrated interests (oil companies) tend to win in battles against diffuse interests (individuals and their descendants who are threatened by climate change.)

An interesting corollary is that a "majority" oppressing a "minority" is not a going concern, but the opposite is. That is, black vs white in the United States vs. South Africa are entirely different things. (Think, 90% of the population can steal everything from 10% of the population and raise it's standard of living by about 10%. 10% of the population can steal 10% of the standard of living from the other 90% and double its own standard of living.)

I think there are two reasons.

Capitalism rests on the promise that inequality maximizes economic growth and economic growth in itself will sweep all other social problems including inequality away. Once there is a prolonged period without (high enough) growth, the promise becomes worthless. People see the inequality for what it is.

However, since there is no growth, they are barely scraping by. They have no spare resources to throw into caring about the environment. So they will all do the thing that hurts them the least today. Meaning they will prefer cheap and destructive products and services over sustainable but expensive ones. Mandating sustainability essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them.

What truly perplexes me though is that even in Germany people will keep voting for parties that basically double "dip", they promise to ensure the availability of cheap unsustainable products but also enact policies that make inequality worse. Cheap meat and oil have basically become a form of welfare to bribe the population.

> Mandating X essentially forces expensive products down the throat of people but since inequality is high they can't afford them.

This is true for anything. For example on classic argument is about consumer safety. If the state puts up barriers to trade (eg. I can't sell my cheap lead painted toys and maybe fake generic medicine and maybe rancid meat), then things will be much more expensive.

Of course the slippery slope is many times just the continuum fallacy in disguise.

In these cases the real problem is manifold, on one part it's a serious lack of social solidarity and social safety net, and the other component is whatever the actual other part is (eg. unsafe toys that babies can swallow, health concerns about food, drugs, etc.).

Real solutions have to address both. Eg. carbon taxes with direct social dividend. (Or other variations, where the raised money goes to directly address those same issues that arise due to climate change.)

There's nothing preventing us from living in a similarly 1-2% growing economy but with net zero GHG emissions. Yes, free resources lying around was amazing, but since then our economic surplus is abso-fucking-lutely enormous.

We merely opt to allocate that on other things instead of decarbonizing. Eg. we spend it on silly things like paving half the world, giving everyone their own car, building small (actually gigantic) cookie cutter houses in suburbs, building new fabs every few years to get more transistors on chips, cramming even more photo gadgets into phones, producing more and more Netflix Prime content, etc.

Building a ton of wind turbines and PV farms, spending years (and billions of USD) reviewing nuclear power plant permits, instead of building more efficient power plants.

as far as I know, "we" are not paving the world. The average person is not spending millions and millions on a marketing plan to bring these ideas into the american and then global imagination.

It's certainly not funded by those who can't afford things.

> consider that the whole "big oil lobbies governments" thing flies right in the face of the "democracy is the voice of the people" argument

I don't think it does. An important part of the lobbying is that we know oil companies are attempting to intentionally deceive politicians and the public about the negative effects of their industry and the positive effects of competitors. That deception is the point at play, the voice of the people can be misinformed.

> If people collectively don't care to fight back at a legislative level against socialized costs, wouldn't that logically mean they're the ones ultimately responsible for their own predicament?

This reads a lot to me like blaming the victim of a scam for being scammed. I've met quite a few climate skeptics in my day regurgitating oil lobbying talking points that were known to be false when published. I don't blame them for not fully comprehending the science behind climate change, I blame those oil companies are knowingly misinforming them.

Of course big oil has its share of immorality, but it's not like we never knew that poisonous smoke comes out of the back of our cars, right?

Again, going back to forests and trees, one could also say the sugar industry is deceptive, or that big tech is, or that big telecom is, etc. So clearly there's a pattern, and companies are all run by people, who are motivated by accumulation of wealth. In other words, the negative factors of the system are intrinsically a part of the system, because greed is, for better or for worse, built into it (it's quite literally the driving force for capitalist economic activity).

What I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter whether "companies lying" or "blaming the victim" is the "correct" position, the crude reality is simply that dishonest things happen as a direct negative side effect of a core principle that we as a society agreed to adopt. Pragmatically speaking, the question then becomes one of: a) what can I personally do to "surgically remove" the negative side effects of this core principle, b) if I can't, to what extent do I "care" in the dilemma between participating in a rotten system vs selfishly enjoying my life or, c) when all hope is lost, how do I take cover when shit inevitably hits the fan

It's my impression that most people have lost hope on a), are in denial about b)[0] and have no clue about c).

[0] https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/upton_sinclair_138285

I mostly agree with what you said here. I'm constantly reminding people I know that its called the petrochemical industry because its about far more than just fossil fuels, you can't unwind the need for advanced chemicals in modern society, the population is just too big for us to realistically unwind our need for e.g. the Haber-Bosch process without major advances, and both the pharmaceuticals industry and high tech are completely dependent on extremely complicated oil-based supply chains. Many people will at this juncture reply that we just need less people, but thats not really an ethical solution by any modern standard.

>susceptible to being wiped out globally by a single unforeseen threat

I'm actually pretty optimistic about this, I think that we have enough people and growing standards of education, that assuming the technological solutions are out there, we will probably find them. The only threat that we aren't taking seriously that would really screw us up is some sort of cosmic event (I am very frustrated that with all the talks of creating a more flexible grid for renewables we aren't taking on the added burden of hardening against a solar storm, which seems inevitable. I'm pretty sure we would be pretty screwed if another Carrington Event happened today.[1])

>"democracy is the voice of the people" argument.

Serious question, is this really a point of view that people have in serious circles? I don't know a single person who believes that the US doesn't suffer from a burgeoning plutocracy. I've been calling this the second guilded age for years now, and it only seems to be getting worse. There is no Teddy Roosevelt figure rising that I see. I can only hope that the next generation of politicians will take reigning in this monster more seriously, but I'm skeptical.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event I feel like something of this magnitude would be enough of a setback on science, in many ways, that all hope might be lost of escaping the terminal state we have put the earth into.

> Or more philosophically speaking, whose fault is it that people living under democratic rules don't challenge the efficacy of their governments? Or, perhaps more importantly, why?

Because, in the US at least, average people have very little actual influence over government policy relative to the influence enjoyed by business interests and the capital class.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

The democracy is more of an illusion, because the biggest factor in a particular policy being implemented is whether or not the wealth class supports it. If a bill has 70% support from the poor/middle class but 70% of the upper class oppose it...it's pretty likely to never pass. Reverse the numbers where 70% of the commoners don't support the bill, but 70% of the upper class do...well it's pretty likely to pass.

https://represent.us/action/no-the-problem/

I agree. Also, sometimes if there exists no demand, corporations will spend a lot to create it such as fashion as mentioned\shown in https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/fast-fashion-turning-...

This is probably not be true for all markets or industries, of course, but I think that (and availability regarding prices) is relevant to not shifting it back onto individual consumer responsibility.

Well said.

I will never understand why people protect oil companies. You know how in comic books there's always a villain going trying to DESTROY THE WORLD and it seems unrealistic and over the top?

Oil companies are this villain in the real world. They are doing their best to kill off humanity, for short term profit.

Big oil downvoted this.

Jokes aside, I really don't see the reason for downvotes. Oil made our world what it is; but any company who still focuses on its profits while knowing alternatives exist that are better for the planet, and parallelly spending billions in PR, is downright evil.

I'd even say it's much more evil than Facebook's or Google's privacy issues that HN bashes every week.

Well, I'd say it's a bit funny to call something evil when a lot of people would die if it disappeared tomorrow. It's very easy to criticise the costs of modern life when the 'evil' is displaced onto someone else. But the truth is, it's a much more morally grey area than we like to admit. And it's hard to opt out of this 'system', but not impossible - I'm sure the Amish would take converts, but not many people want to go that route.

It's an appealing story to say that the O&G economy is the villain and all the people participating in it are innocent, but the truth is, we know how to live in bronze age societies. This 'evil system' doesn't stick around because it holds us prisoner, it sticks around because most of us prefer the lifestyle. And a story that absolves us of responsibility for participating seems like just another defence mechanism the system has built up.

> It's an appealing story to say that the O&G economy is the villain and all the people participating in it are innocent, but the truth is, we know how to live in bronze age societies. This 'evil system' doesn't stick around because it holds us prisoner, it sticks around because most of us prefer the lifestyle. And a story that absolves us of responsibility for participating seems like just another defence mechanism the system has built up.

Normal people have much less choice than you imagine.

Even in the rich western world, only the very affluent can buy electric car instead of gas one. Only the very affluent can afford apartments in city centers so they can walk instead of driving. Nobody can change where their electricity comes from, whether is it coal or renewables. Nobody can pick between grocery store that gets its supply in diesel trucks and second grocery store that gets its supply on electric trucks and trains powered by renewable electricity. There's no "planet non-destroying iphone" next to "planet destroying iphone" in the shop for you to decide between.

The problem is that the choice presented is not, and will never be, "planet non-destroying iphone" versus "planet destroying iphone". The choice is between "iphone" or "nothing".

Understandably people choose "iphone", but that's doesn't negate that the choice exists. Yes it's very expensive to live a modern lifestyle with fewer direct O&G inputs. It's however really cheap to live a subsistence lifestyle in the middle of nowhere without all the environment wrecking conveniences; it's not near as comfortable though.

I see where you're going with this, but I disagree. Normal people want cars and planes and phones sure. But they don't really have any voice or choice in how the manufacturing is done, and they always want the cheapest options. Most don't even know what environmental issues the products or services they consume result in. They are intentionally deceived, kept uneducated, and lied to via sold media outlets and false advertising.

Thus, it is responsibility of the powers that be to move in the direction which research suggests is the best for humanity's and the earth's long term existence.

Politicians are supposed to do that via taxes and subsidies to promote environment-friendly options. But, the US has shown that it's easy for a old, selfish, and dumb politicians to sway the masses with false promises and grandiose oration. And the politicians, given that they have less than 20 years remaining on this earth, are happy to fill their pockets with more money than they can use rather than giving a fuck about the future.

Secondly, the oil companies are supposed to have some sense and care for humanity and not continue choosing options that damage the earth but instead should have started shifting to environmental friendly options when they became aware of the consequences of burning oil. But, again, they are happy to forget it all in return for some extra profits. Maybe it's because they know that if they stop selling oil, some other competitor will start. But if the top oil companies actually worked with the government to get oil restricted and promote renewables, they could actually have made a difference and at least taken a step in the right direction. But they didn't even try.

It's really futile to share blame with the consumers, the world we live in does not give the average person any choice. And the average person is too damn tired with working a meaningless 8h+commute/day to even think or learn about these issues. The blame lies fully with the powers on top.

The unmoral corporate and legal pressures and incentive structures they're in dictate that they do their best to earn short term profits. They are unconcerned whether their actions kill off humanity eventually, that's simply not a factor they're capable of caring about.

Then we must destroy the very idea of a corporation. If it is truly impossible for a corporation to avoid fundamentally damaging human civilization in search of the almighty dollar, then we need to prevent those incentives from existing in the first place.

There is a better solution: the government reins in corporations that are creating a problem for the world. Once upon a time that was a non-controversial idea.

There is a market for the products they supply at the price they offer, there is a demand for return on investment they provide in a global financial system (and just try to disconnect from that).

I hate that companies are ruining the environment, I hate that companies are killing people with unsafe products, I hate that companies are mistreating workers, I hate that countries have bullied their way over indigenous peoples to "own" the country I live it, I hate that companies profit off of promoting things that destroy humanity as we used to know it.

But I don't see there being a clear line between who is "good" and who is "bad". My own answer, which I expect will please very few, is that we do our best in the small sphere of influence we have to be loving toward all, and beg God to save us.

I see more and more of these types of comments that just go so far out there as to be absurd, and I'm glad they're downvoted.

You have a long way to go to prove that this vague, evil entity called an "oil company" has a will of it's own, and that will is to destroy the world. My guess is that the will of this entity is to make money, and an unfortunate side-effect is that it damages the earths ecosystem.

But then I'm not prone to ridiculous hyperbole.

This type of "evil genius" is quite successful at brainwashing people though.

Honestly, I think most of it is culture war.

The people who oppose oil companies are often the same people who take progressive views on a lot of other topics -- gay rights, gun control, pollution, etc. And that generates an almost knee-jerk opposition: anything they are for, we must be against.

It's tribalism. If liberals are opposed to oil companies, than oil companies must be good. Then they'll be provided with arguments to support it, derived by think tanks and distributed via dedicated media, web sites, social media, etc. Those are generally pretty poor arguments, but it doesn't matter: they have a thing to say, and no particular interest in questioning it.

So the whole thing ends up being shortcut by the longstanding culture war between left and right. Neither side has to do any thinking; the thinking is all done for them. It just so happens that the anti-oil-company side is having its thinking done by scientists, while the pro-oil-company side has its thinking done by professional propagandists, political strategists, and the occasional hand on the wheel from full-time troll farms.

"the longstanding culture war between left and right"

...by which you must mean the "culture war" that only the right wing seems to know or care about. It is not really "between" the left and right as much as it is a right-wing concept that people on the left almost universally roll their eyes at (or fall into the trap of actually responding to right-wing agitation).

"Neither side has to do any thinking"

Except that, as you point out, one side is responding to scientific results indicating a serious and growing problem, while the other is not. One side is thinking, or at worst dependent on a group of people who at least try to push their personal biases out of the way when they are thinking. The other side reflexively calls all of it some combination of "socialist," "hoax," or "government takeover," without even acknowledging the existence of a problem.

Yes, I know the downvotes are coming for this, but the fact is that the Republican party has stopped even trying. You can be pro-oil-company and also be pro-reducing-carbon-emissions. Where are the Republican proposals to develop industrial-scale carbon capture to offset all those tailpipe and smokestack emissions? Carbon capture could have been an entirely new industry for oil companies to expand into, growing their businesses while reducing net carbon emissions. Instead Republicans lined up behind someone who declared climate change to be a Chinese hoax and stopped even suggesting alternatives to the Democrats' proposed solutions.

I'm infected with that same consolation-seeking attitude that so many left-centrists show: "Always admit your own side's weaknesses."

So I can't avoid acknowledging that I do see a certain amount of culture-warrioring on the left, and a lot of people arriving at the right answer for the wrong reasons. I do that even though the things you point out are undeniable and obvious. The Republican party has stopped trying. They know perfectly well that even their nominal "centrists" are always going to side with their lunatic fringe, even as I can't control the impulse to limit my own (and earning their ire in the process).

I'm completely aware that almost every post I make with even the slightest hint of progressivism is going to be downvoted. (I'm stunned that my above post is currently sitting at +3, though I've little doubt it will be down below zero by morning.)

And yet... I grew up talking at a time when we were entitled to differences of opinion but not differences of fact. And I just can't seem to shake the way that pushed me to seek accommodations, to trust that the truth was the best way to argue and seek a compromise we could all live with. It's been a very long time since I've believed that -- over a decade. But the habits are hard to break.

That's totally true, but it's also true that if we reined in consumption, altered our habits and focused on reusing more then we are doing two things. First, we're taking ownership for our responsibility in this whole mess (acknowledging that there are trees in this forest), and second we're hurting oil companies where it counts. If we don't consume they can't supply.

If we wait for our governments to hold them to account we're not going to get anywhere.

If we pushed up the cost of that consumption I'd be willing to bet we'd see it magically reduce.

I don't think focusing on individual responsibility will work. In order to make a meaningful difference we need to make sure that

a) everyone knows what the issues are and what changes need to be made b) everyone is willing to make the sacrifices necessary

If we've learned anything from (the entire history of the human race) it's that people who know and care will shoulder the burden of making changes while those who don't will benefit from it all.

If we want to make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption, we need meaningful action at the national and global scale by major political powers. Taxes, regulation, criminal consequences are the only way to move the needle.

edit: dougmwne said it better than I did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28317665

That may be true, but refusing to make meaningful sacrifices before everyone else does is awful PR. Even if the only meaningful thing anyone can do is change public opinion, leading by example is still the most effective way of doing so.

I really think the DeFi movement is the only group making any headway there, because reducing consumption is billed as a means to further one's own self-interest there.

I don't think it's pessimistic to say that as the "green" economy expands we are starting to see those same well-funded parties buying PR to selling snake oil or spreading fud. Energy is pretty hard to the average person to understand and energy+politics is almost impossible without some interest/background in foreign policy.

https://www.kochind.com/stewardship/environmental-performanc...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com