Hacker News Reader

Comment by croes | Hacker News Reader

The sad part is, it's not happening because we couldn't do anything but because we didn't do what we could.

Remember the sinking island scene in Erik the Viking?

We should take note that even now we have companies pushing back against any changes to our oil consumption. They're literally intent on destroying our way of life to get a bit more profit.

But our oil consumption essentially is our way of life. Changing it will have enormous effects on modern life. A lot of people are going to see a significant drop in their quality of life as a result. This is why it's so hard to change things in the first place, it's not about the companies, but about average people.

That seems disingenuous when the climate catastrophe is going to have far greater effects on modern life. Too many people are clinging to the dream of continuing to dig out and burn as much oil as possible when it's clear that that behaviour is not sustainable.

Although personal responsibility is never a bad thing, we need to focus on the big companies that have been deliberately hiding climate science for decades - they're the ones doing the lion's share of the polluting and suppressing alternatives.

People don't dream about burning more oil, they dream about the quality of life that this process affords us. Things like uninterrupted power, (uninterrupted) running water, cleaner water, the internet, cheap food, enough food (fertilizers/Haber-Bosch process), accessible transportation, economies of scale etc. While few of these things require fossil fuels, fossil fuels are nevertheless the reason why these things are abundant and accessible.

People dream about living a good life. Our fossil fuel consumption has afforded this to many. That is why it's difficult to change. Companies don't make stuff for fun, they do it because there's consumer demand for it.

The really crazy part is that petroleum supply is not a sustainable resource, so we're extravagantly flaring it off when in reality using it for things like fertilizers or steel production while using nuclear/solar + batteries + HVDC for all other purposes would allow us to maintain or improve standard of living for far longer.

> Companies don't make stuff for fun, they do it because there's consumer demand for it.

Companies have so much power that they can fabricate (or suppress) their own demand by manipulating the political sphere. The situation exists because it's more easily profitable, the alternative takes time/effort, and our market/government incentives only focus on short-term thinking. The same companies that profit prevent changes to such incentives.

This is the best anti-green argumentation I have ever seen. This is what a drop of water thinks about, which never considers itself a part of tsunami.

I hope it isn't only seen as anti-green. A big worry I have concerning climate change is that often I see discussions about climate policy ignore why our consumption is so high. It's not really the billionaires or greedy corporations. It's us. We're the ones consuming the bulk of these resources. And these policies will affect the poorest the most.

On the other hand, I also worry about the impact of climate change. I think as long as things remain within current predictions we will be able to manage, but what if they don't? What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?

> It's us. We're the ones consuming the bulk of these resources

Agree.

> What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?

I think we're already there (for example, in quite few studies 2030 is the new 2050 for 1.5C target). Sea temperatures (esp. in the nothern sea) and ice cover also seems to change faster than predicted (we could have ice free summers in the arctic before 2030, and thawing of greenland is also faster than expected).

Sustainable policies likely affect the poorest the least. Climate change will affect them the most.

The poorest already make a lot of sustainable choices: living in apartments in cities, taking public transportation, consuming less.

It’s possible that if carbon was heavily taxed, and some of the proceeds returned to everybody, that the poorest would actually be better off. Never mind the whole stopping the climate catastrophe threat.

The poorest mostly live in the developing world that's still catching up and has the highest birth rates. Yes, their carbon footprint is low now. But their energy needs will keep going up until they fully develop and the global population peaks (a couple billion more people from now). It's unclear to what extent clean energies will meet their increasing demand, at least before the world can decarbonize, whenever that happens.

It's the clear tension of keeping our way of life now versus being able to keep parts of it in the future.

Clearly, some people care about the now more than the future.

The solution is a carbon tax, which is unpopular with big oil companies but probably also unpopular with many citizens who vote based on gas prices.

We may just have to use solar radiation management instead.

Many European countries already have something like that: excise taxes on gasoline. Gasoline in Europe is almost twice the price of gas in the US, even in countries where people earn half of what Americans do. It's not particularly new either - they've been around for decades now.

This teaches us a valuable lesson though - money from carbon taxes must not go into the government budget. It should instead be distributed to something automatically (eg equal payments to everyone or the poorest). If it becomes part of the budget then governments might try to maximize revenue rather than deal with the problem.

> solar radiation management

Hahahaha. I can see it now: "Exxon Stratospheric Sulfur Shield - using dirty fuels in long-haul flights to create a particulate-based solar shield [0]. Partnering with governments around the globe [1] to protect the earth and boost tourism. Because we care."

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/stratospheric-aer...

[1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill...

That's not a solution.

80% of our current energy still comes from fossil fuels. The world runs on it. There isn't a simple solution that's economically and politically viable. It takes time to change that without drastically altering people's lifestyles. We saw how untenable that was in the longterm during Covid lockdowns.

This is quite accurate in fact: to use a Dune analogy: oil is the spice. It must flow, or the empire is diminished and might fall apart.

There is an alternative however, and countries like China are pursuing it. Want to look at what life would be like with less petroleum usage per capita? Look to Asia. I'm not some tankie, but I also don't have blinders on.

I doubt the same people who won’t accept a decline in quality of life by reduced oil consumption will be thrilled with the consequences of the alternative.

You mean what's predicted to come tomorrow, and has little to no effect today? Anti-carbon policies however, will have immediate effects felt today, for benefits tomorrow ...

This is our natural tendency, to seek the quick rewards but we are intelligent beings, capable of planning.

The same arguments can be made for future of your own children, retirement plans, planting trees, long term investments, etc. Yet these are not as controversial and we accept them, more or less, as generally good practices.

This natural instinct on its own is not enough to make people forget the coming danger. You need constant advertisement, news cycles, opinion pieces, disinformation campaigns, etc. to make it stick.

I'm happy with remote working.

Energy is why we burn fossil fuels. Energy is an input to everything. So this is about less consumption, or to put it another way: a drop in income. Let's say 10% less income for you, without you getting any compensation for it in any way. Other than reduced global climate impact.

Of course, you'd have to actually destroy that 10%, if you leave it on a bank account the bank would lend it, or the government would use it, which would prevent this from having an impact.

Inflation has done that already.

That doesn't count. That's just a way to redirect money towards loan repayment. For it to work you'd have to use it to pay people to do nothing that otherwise would have done a job. You'll need to destroy economic value without destroying natural resources.

Source?

Sorry, about to go grab a train, so only had time to find a couple of Shell examples:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66108553

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59154930

It's not just fossil fuels.

"The factory of ignorance": Arte tells about these industrialists who manipulate science

https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2021-02-23-%0A---%22the-fa...

Inside big beef’s climate messaging machine: confuse, defend and downplay

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-ind...

Why Right-Wingers Are So Afraid of Men Eating Vegetables

https://newrepublic.com/article/171781/meat-culture-war-cric...

The meat industry is borrowing tactics from Big Oil to obfuscate the truth about climate change