How Big Oil is manipulating the way you think about climate change

That includes making it economically advantageous to choose electricity as the local source while accelerating the greening of the grid. That is frequently not the most advantageous choice for consumers now, and we should not be surprised when they choose what’s most advantageous for them.

> Meat eating isn't a "problem" to be solved IMHO. Although I'm sure you'll see me as an eco terrorist for even wanting steak and chicken.

While this is a little inflammatory I basically agree, meat eating is not in isolation an environmental issue, it's arguably a moral issue, and one I have made my peace with. I eat meat and enjoy it.

However, rearing animals in any way (whether it's for meat, dairy, even pets) carries with it a lot of environmental cost – animal feed production, methane emissions from cows, carbon emissions from farming, water use, etc. Completely ignoring the moral part, there's a significant environmental cost that can't be replaced – we can't switch to non-methane-producing cows.

Unfortunately regardless of dietary preferences, this is something we're going to have to contend with as unlike electricity usage there isn't a like-for-like replacement.

Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.

The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.

Not quite half a century - they are a bit behind the times when in comes to climate lobbying - but they sure as hell spend. I've met a couple of farm lobbyists during my short time in local government, and they're not doing poorly on the financial front.

To quote a favored WP article of mine on the subject:

"The North American Meat Institute, insisting that there is “much uncertainty” about climate change, publishes “fact sheets” that selectively count only manure management and animal digestion byproducts as contributors to emissions. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association website includes an animated explainer, “Tough questions about beef sustainability,” that minimizes the industry’s role in environmental problems, from water use to carbon emissions. In response to congressional plans to address climate issues or reports calling for dietary changes, these groups contend that the beef supply chain has environmental benefits, such as cultivating soil for carbon storage. They also point to data showing that farmers and ranchers have become more efficient, producing meat and poultry using fewer resources. Changing food consumption, they contend, is not a “silver bullet.”....

... Sara Place, a scientist who worked for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, preemptively wrote an article on “Why Taxing Beef Isn’t the Answer.”

What unfolded with fossil fuels suggests at least one path for meat and dairy. Instead of clean coal, the industry might tout carbon-neutral beef, regenerative agriculture and responsible grazing. Just as natural gas from fracking was presented as a “bridge fuel,” we might expect marketing to encourage consumers to switch to “bridge meats” like chicken or salmon (which, like natural gas, have their own significant environmental impacts). The agricultural industry will also invest in technological solutions — such as an algae diet to reduce methane in cattle — to avoid making more substantial changes that would hurt its bottom line."

Same shit with a different coat of greenwashing paint.

See article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-meat-industry-is-...

personal responsibility is important but collective responsibility is important too.

Just like you should try not to mug people in the park it's probably a good idea to pass laws that make it illegal too.

You don't like the capitalization on the Highly Credentialed Expert, presumably. The derision is there for a purpose. It's highlighting that the author presents herself as a logic professor, so we'd hope she's an expert in logic, but her argument isn't logical.

Her argument for why climate footprint calculators are a subtle manipulation by oil companies is that they're "red herrings". A red herring is a fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information. Personal CO2 footprints seem pretty relevant to any discussion of climate change, but she doesn't like that because it implies that anyone other than oil companies needs to do anything. See, she assigns all emissions to oil companies alone. If you buy a car then drive it on a long trip you didn't need, the emissions don't come from you, you did nothing. Every last atom was emitted by whoever pulled it out of the ground originally. This isn't a logical way to talk about emissions because the act of putting oil in a tank doesn't emit any CO2. It's the decision to burn it that does.

BTW, if you judge an argument purely by its tone then you'd have to ignore all claims about the climate in outlets like Salon. They're all filled with derision, scorn and visceral hatred for anyone who disagrees. The Salon author says things like "If our collective philosophical literacy were better" and asserts anyone who disagrees with her are "pros" in misdirection who "assume that the average American is not much smarter than a Cocker Spaniel".

1. If there was a crisis people would be dying but deaths from weather are massively down over the last 100 years.

2. You can't actually perceive climate change with your senses because the changes are far too small and slow, so you have to rely on news media and academics

I'd imagine Vatican City has an even higher emission per capita than nearly anywhere else, but it would be silly to pretend that's where we should prioritize policy change.

As it stands, the one country produces more CO2 than the following 7 combined. That number is only set to increase. If our goal is a global reduction, should that not be where we focus the majority of our political energy? If Luxembourg went down to net 0 emissions, my understanding is effectively no difference would be made on a global scale.

But you are right, a global alliance to have consistent CO2 tax on import goods and CO2 tax in the country would fundamentally realign economic supply chains.

There are of course a whole host of practical issue with the idea but it is right in concept.

I didn't see it as unhinged or wild, just a very tame observation. I'm curious what part of their comment bothered you so much?