8 ms·

I don't say oil is convenient, I say oil is necessary. Is farming your own food without any fossil fuels possible for you? For me, it is impossible. Not inconve

I don't say oil is convenient, I say oil is necessary. Is farming your own food without any fossil fuels possible for you? For me, it is impossible. Not inconvenient, not infeasible, but impossible. I can't afford land to farm on, I can't buy or catch or tend to farm animals to replace tractors, I can't buy or make farm tools that do not come from fossil fuels. Alas, I have to buy food shipped to me using fossil fuels, and farmed using fossil fuels. If I pay taxes I help subsidize fossil fuels. If I get an EV its manufacturer burned fossil fuels to create it and ship it to me. Tell me who I can vote for to change this. Tell me how I can eat without using fossil fuels. Tell me how I can work without using fossil fuels. Tell me what choices I can make so that I am not to blame. There is no such choice. I literally cannot avoid fossil fuels. Maybe if we could all agree that the fault is indeed with fossil fuel companies, who not only provide oil but also lobby the government to prevent us from moving away from it. Maybe then, we could have the actual change you are clearly so invested in.

sokoloff 4y ago
OK, I accept your argument that oil is necessary. What is the appropriate punishment for the companies who are reliably supplying this critical-to-society natural resource? Must the oil companies both continue to reliably supply oil and ensure that society obsoletes them? There are order of magnitude 20 million people working in oil, gas, and coal. Perhaps they could continue to focus on supplying society with these necessary resources and the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility to migrate society off of those fuels rather than making those same 20 million people have to do both jobs?
- lasfter 4y ago
  > What is the appropriate punishment Obviously this question deserves more thorough and qualified treatment than I could give, but it doesn't seem outlandish to expect that the corporation should lose some 'rights' much like people do when they face consequences for crimes. I would want the executives in this case to face personal consequences, like jail time, and I would want to e.g., prevent oil companies from lobbying, or nationalize them, or something to similar effect. > the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility Something I haven't been able to communicate to you this thread, despite my best efforts, is that taking that responsibility is impossible when fossil fuel companies have mountains of money and power. Fossil fuel companies are worth more to elected representatives than constituents, and they have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels in all sectors of society. They aren't meekly and reluctantly providing oil to us nasty consumers, they do their best to create and grow markets for their products. They are already doing 2 jobs: supply oil and ensure society doesn't obsolete them. You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change and simply like to act against their best interests, or that climate change is in our best interests. In my opinion, neither is true, and given that Exxon actively suppressed their own research on the matter, I think they would agree with me.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    > You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change The knowledge of CO2 (and water vapor) acting as an insulating blanket and having a warming effect on the planet was known years before the very first oil well was drilled and over a dozen years before Standard Oil (which eventually became Exxon and later ExxonMobil) was even founded. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote It was also well known before Standard Oil's founding that oil is a hydrocarbon and that the complete combustion of hydrocarbons emits primarily CO2 and H2O. Portraying Exxon of 100 years later as being the sole possessors of secret knowledge of the existence of atmospheric warming is grossly inaccurate IMO.
    - lasfter 4y ago
      This discussion is spiralling. It feels like you attack tiny parts of my comments while ignoring the broader point, and I don't really know if you're commenting in good faith. You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? If you asked Congress today many wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure some of them sincerely believe there's no problem. Do you think voters knew back then? If this was common knowledge, why did Exxon have to suppress anything? From the OP: > Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use. My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Because throughout this conversation what I've understood from your comments is that you think they did nothing wrong because people consume oil.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        > My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Based on everything I know, I vehemently disagree. We don't punish "evil"; we punish law-breaking; this is a very good thing for individuals and companies in a free society to be able to rely upon. We have a justice system based on laws, not (directly*) on morality. This is important, especially given the propensity for morality to vary per person and to shift and evolve in its interpretation and for similar actions by different people, or similar actions by the same people at different times, to be morally judged differently. If it was legal for Exxon to not share their proprietary knowledge (that there was no legal obligation for them to publish their knowledge), there's no legal basis for punishment. I believe that's the exact situation that we're in, which is why there are outrage articles published (moral judgments) but not indictments (prelude to legal judgments). I believe that's responsive to your major point. On your more minor point: > You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? I believe that that knowledge was available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided above. I can't prove one way or the other, therefore will not surmise, what "people in power" nor voters did or didn't know, on average, in 1923. * Our laws are loosely based upon on our morality, but there's a critically important level of indirection and specificity that precludes persecution of people based on an implied moral proscription rather than a codified legal proscription.

sokoloff 4y ago

OK, I accept your argument that oil is necessary. What is the appropriate punishment for the companies who are reliably supplying this critical-to-society natural resource? Must the oil companies both continue to reliably supply oil and ensure that society obsoletes them? There are order of magnitude 20 million people working in oil, gas, and coal. Perhaps they could continue to focus on supplying society with these necessary resources and the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility to migrate society off of those fuels rather than making those same 20 million people have to do both jobs?

lasfter 4y ago
> What is the appropriate punishment Obviously this question deserves more thorough and qualified treatment than I could give, but it doesn't seem outlandish to expect that the corporation should lose some 'rights' much like people do when they face consequences for crimes. I would want the executives in this case to face personal consequences, like jail time, and I would want to e.g., prevent oil companies from lobbying, or nationalize them, or something to similar effect. > the other 7.85 billion people on the planet could take up the responsibility Something I haven't been able to communicate to you this thread, despite my best efforts, is that taking that responsibility is impossible when fossil fuel companies have mountains of money and power. Fossil fuel companies are worth more to elected representatives than constituents, and they have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels in all sectors of society. They aren't meekly and reluctantly providing oil to us nasty consumers, they do their best to create and grow markets for their products. They are already doing 2 jobs: supply oil and ensure society doesn't obsolete them. You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change and simply like to act against their best interests, or that climate change is in our best interests. In my opinion, neither is true, and given that Exxon actively suppressed their own research on the matter, I think they would agree with me.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change The knowledge of CO2 (and water vapor) acting as an insulating blanket and having a warming effect on the planet was known years before the very first oil well was drilled and over a dozen years before Standard Oil (which eventually became Exxon and later ExxonMobil) was even founded. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote It was also well known before Standard Oil's founding that oil is a hydrocarbon and that the complete combustion of hydrocarbons emits primarily CO2 and H2O. Portraying Exxon of 100 years later as being the sole possessors of secret knowledge of the existence of atmospheric warming is grossly inaccurate IMO.
  - lasfter 4y ago
    This discussion is spiralling. It feels like you attack tiny parts of my comments while ignoring the broader point, and I don't really know if you're commenting in good faith. You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? If you asked Congress today many wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure some of them sincerely believe there's no problem. Do you think voters knew back then? If this was common knowledge, why did Exxon have to suppress anything? From the OP: > Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use. My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Because throughout this conversation what I've understood from your comments is that you think they did nothing wrong because people consume oil.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      > My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Based on everything I know, I vehemently disagree. We don't punish "evil"; we punish law-breaking; this is a very good thing for individuals and companies in a free society to be able to rely upon. We have a justice system based on laws, not (directly*) on morality. This is important, especially given the propensity for morality to vary per person and to shift and evolve in its interpretation and for similar actions by different people, or similar actions by the same people at different times, to be morally judged differently. If it was legal for Exxon to not share their proprietary knowledge (that there was no legal obligation for them to publish their knowledge), there's no legal basis for punishment. I believe that's the exact situation that we're in, which is why there are outrage articles published (moral judgments) but not indictments (prelude to legal judgments). I believe that's responsive to your major point. On your more minor point: > You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? I believe that that knowledge was available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided above. I can't prove one way or the other, therefore will not surmise, what "people in power" nor voters did or didn't know, on average, in 1923. * Our laws are loosely based upon on our morality, but there's a critically important level of indirection and specificity that precludes persecution of people based on an implied moral proscription rather than a codified legal proscription.