Hacker News Reader

Comment by christianqchung | Hacker News Reader

> the biggest polluters and criminals in the climate story are still by far the fossil fuel industry (eg. Shell, Exxon)

What does this actually mean? It feels like when people say this it implies that gas companies just burn gas randomly for no reason. They sell their gas to everyday consumers, actual people. Why is this Shell/Exxon's fault and not consumers?

View on HN

Did consumers ask Exxon to suppress climate change research?

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

No, but that doesn't change the fact that people in general dislike the idea of lowering their standard of living for environmental reasons.

Nobody pollutes in a vacuum, and the truth is that our emissions are the collective responsibility of all of us and not just 10 large companies or whatever the Reddit line is these days.

> people in general dislike the idea of lowering their standard of living for environmental reasons.

> Nobody pollutes in a vacuum

I agree, not in a vacuum. If everyone knew the true risks then they might re-think things. They might prioritize tech that could reduce pollution without lowering living standards.

Oil companies have worked very hard at covering up the truth, purely because a transition to cleaner tech would cost them money.

> our emissions are the collective responsibility of all of us

This reminds me of the Bugs Bunny/communism meme. My profits, our emissions.

If you pay for gas and then drive your car, both you and the oil company have benefitted from the pollution...

The biggest polluter is China but who cares about reality.

Big oil fits better into my social media feed and political beliefs.

Speaking of political beliefs interfering with accuracy, China’s population confounds those comparisons: if you look at per capita emissions, they’re well below the top even before you consider how much their export economy is shifting emissions rather than creating them.

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

I suppose it's similar to the obsession with the economy of Nordic countries, but failing to mention it's propped up by the fossil fuel industry.

Only Norway and Denmark have significant oil exports. Sweden and Finland do not.

We need to rewire the economy in a zillion different ways. Nobody should be using fossil fuels if they can avoid it, but so many cannot at present e.g. air travel, steel mills. Shell and Exxon aren't forcing people to burn their product. If they shut down tomorrow, millions worldwide would starve. We better keep them going as long as we need them. Edit: I work in oilfield services and probably am a little biased.

They're lying to people about the harms of their products. I'd give them a pass if they hadn't done that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...

I don't think the oil industry should shut down tomorrow. Because you're right that it would be a disaster and hundreds of millions would starve and die.

But I also don't think the oil industry should put up any barriers to renewable energy. By doing that they force us to need oil. They should accept that they need to wind down.

Employees should be provided good exits from the industry.

> Shell and Exxon aren't forcing people to burn their product.

Is this a joke? They are lobbying against the subsidy of alternatives that are better for society. The repeal of subsidies was just successfully achieved in the OBBB. Yet, they continue to get subsidies themselves. Have you noticed the special exemption for oil and gas extraction on your tax forms? It’s in your face.

So revoking a subsidy is forcing people to act a certain way?

Dude, we burned plenty of oil even when we had the subsides. Big automakers were on board with the idea, energy companies were pivoting to batteries and renewables - and the average person still cared more about their costs and standard of living than whether things were actually green or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com