Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

Again sure I can put on a hair shirt and go live in a cave. But that will make no difference at all because the problems are entirely created by the systems that run our modern world. They need to be changed at the level of the problem not by my the individual going to live in a cave.

If a million people go live in caves the amount of carbon being emitted in the world will barely change. If a key system that currently emits carbon is engineered and designed to not do that then suddenly a huge change is made.

So no I don't think people not putting on hairshirts and living in caves is the problem. That is just stupid IMO, and distracts from the actual solutions. It is just a tool to distract with virtue signaling and nonsense.

The problem is created by the release of carbon into the atmosphere, not by systems.  Any individual or entity that releases carbon into the atmosphere is part of the problem.

My beef is with the people who pretend TEH OIL COMPANIES are the only culprits, and the rest of us are innocent.  Anyone who burns carbon is part of the problem.

[viper37]

Again sure I can put on a hair shirt and go live in a cave. But that will make no difference at all because the problems are entirely created by the systems that run our modern world. They need to be changed at the level of the problem not by my the individual going to live in a cave.

If a million people go live in caves the amount of carbon being emitted in the world will barely change. If a key system that currently emits carbon is engineered and designed to not do that then suddenly a huge change is made.

So no I don't think people not putting on hairshirts and living in caves is the problem. That is just stupid IMO, and distracts from the actual solutions. It is just a tool to distract with virtue signaling and nonsense.

The problem is created by the release of carbon into the atmosphere, not by systems.  Any individual or entity that releases carbon into the atmosphere is part of the problem.

My beef is with the people who pretend TEH OIL COMPANIES are the only culprits, and the rest of us are innocent.  Anyone who burns carbon is part of the problem.

Everyone burns carbon, as long as they live and breathe.

[Josquius]

Again sure I can put on a hair shirt and go live in a cave. But that will make no difference at all because the problems are entirely created by the systems that run our modern world. They need to be changed at the level of the problem not by my the individual going to live in a cave.

If a million people go live in caves the amount of carbon being emitted in the world will barely change. If a key system that currently emits carbon is engineered and designed to not do that then suddenly a huge change is made.

So no I don't think people not putting on hairshirts and living in caves is the problem. That is just stupid IMO, and distracts from the actual solutions. It is just a tool to distract with virtue signaling and nonsense.

The problem is created by the release of carbon into the atmosphere, not by systems.  Any individual or entity that releases carbon into the atmosphere is part of the problem.

My beef is with the people who pretend TEH OIL COMPANIES are the only culprits, and the rest of us are innocent.  Anyone who burns carbon is part of the problem.

The world doesn't work in black and whites.

Sure. By living in modern society you're part of the problem. You could choose not to take that flight. You could choose not to heat your home. You could choose not to eat tomatos in winter. Loads of changes big and small you can make.

But blaming consumers is wrong. Individuals are pretty powerless entities that can only influence the decisions of the true impactors enmasse.

Sure I personally account for 0.000 (keep going for a long time) 1% of climate change... But estimates have the oil companies as responsible for 20-45% of greenhouse gas emissions. Which for a handful of organisations is pretty damn high even with the most conservative number.

It's these big companies sitting on billions with a massive yearly income who have the power to change. They're the ones who can afford to build a tonne of wind farms and drastically cut down on oil drilling.
All we can do is try to do the best we can in the world they make.

[Admiral Yi]

Customers are not powerless.  They have total discretion on how they travel, how they heat and cool their housing, what foods to buy, etc., etc., etc.

That 20-45% is bullshit.  The oil companies pump oil out of the ground.  That doesn't cause climate change.  Climate change is caused when the customer they sold gas to turns on the ignition.

[Josquius]

Customers are not powerless.  They have total discretion on how they travel, how they heat and cool their housing, what foods to buy, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe in astract theory. Not in reality.
If you want to heat your house then for 99% of people there's zero practical choice but do use what's already there, likely a gas boiler or possibly mains powered electric heating.
If you want to eat then you're severely limited by your budget and what time and travel resources you have to visit shops with varied stock.
These are things which aren't really choices to do.

That 20-45% is bullshit.  The oil companies pump oil out of the ground.  That doesn't cause climate change.  Climate change is caused when the customer they sold gas to turns on the ignition.

Nope. I even gave a conservative number despite it making a ridiculously broad range.
Googling a bit more I see a figure of 9% purely for the production side... Which is still quite a lot more than what you or I come up with.
And that's a ridiculous niche to limit their output to.

If I lock you in a room with only cola to drink then sure you could choose not to drink the cola... But you're not getting anything else and drinking is a fundamental human need.

The world isn't black and white. To blame consumers 100% for consuming their only choice is bad logic.

[Jacob]

My beef is with the people who pretend TEH OIL COMPANIES are the only culprits, and the rest of us are innocent.  Anyone who burns carbon is part of the problem.

TEH OIL COMPANIES are not the only culprits, no. However...

Many oil companies - and owners of oil companies - do however deploy significant financial resources and apply critical political pressure to defend their businesses in ways that are often completely counter to addressing the issues.

It's well established that Exxon knew of the dangers of climate change as early as the 1970s, with other major oil corporations potentially knowing earlier... and it was definitely well known in the industry by the 80s. Their response to identifying this global threat - and the threat to their businesses - was to kick the can as far down the road as possible and to minimize the amount of responsibility and expected action accruing to them. The idea of "the individual carbon footprint" comes from an ad campaign developed by BP explicitly designed to shift away from the idea that there was a point to do anything with the oil industry and towards the notion that individual consumer choice is what matters.

... and the reality is that humanity only has one proven method of dealing with large scale challenges, and that's concerted collective action driven by government policy (and cooperation between multiple governments). The idea that individual consumer choice is going to have any kind of substantial impact without active government intervention (supporting relevant industries, discouraging destructive behaviour, creating incentives so individuals are able to actually select the better courses of action) is a complete red herring.

So the bottom line is that those who actively oppose the ability of governments to take action on climate change are the primary culprits - whether that's big capital using its influence to hamstring government policy, whether it's politicians or parties opposing taking useful action, or whether it's voters (in democracies at least) voting for climate denialist politicians.

... and while casting blame for past action isn't particularly constructive, the fact remains that the "climate sceptic" global warming denialist movement was conceptualized, created, funded, and astro-turfed by big oil and its PR firms to protect year-over-year profitability.

[Jacob]

The world isn't black and white. To blame consumers 100% for consuming their only choice is bad logic.

... it's the result of a concerted PR campaign by big oil - conventially thought to have taken off with BP's "calculate your individual carbon footprint" ad campaign in 2005, designed by Ogilvy - to avoid having to take any responsibility for countering climate change.

[Jacob]

Article from earlier this year about how accurate Exxon's internal predictions re: global warming were in the 1970s.

But fear not, Exxon has made clear it is not to blame in any shape or form because:

...  In 2019, Judge Barry Ostrager of the NY State Supreme Court listened to all the facts in a related case before him and wrote: "What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible....The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting."

[Jacob]

Customers are not powerless.  They have total discretion on how they travel, how they heat and cool their housing, what foods to buy, etc., etc., etc.

When in the history of the modern world has customer action resulted in a noticable impact on a sustained crisis absent significant government policy? [I'm also interested in pre-modern examples as a nerdy tangent, but I don't think they're going to be particularly relevant to the current situation, if they exist]

If the solution to the climate change crisis is to rely on individual customer action, I hope you can point to a relevant example where that approach has been successful.

[Admiral Yi]

When in the history of the modern world has customer action resulted in a noticable impact on a sustained crisis absent significant government policy? [I'm also interested in pre-modern examples as a nerdy tangent, but I don't think they're going to be particularly relevant to the current situation, if they exist]

If the solution to the climate change crisis is to rely on individual customer action, I hope you can point to a relevant example where that approach has been successful.

Jared Diamond gives a few examples of bottom up ecosystem preservation and population stabilization in his book Collapse.  The New Guinea highlands is the best example.

Please not you have shifted the goalposts.  I said oil companies are not the only ones to blame for climate change, the end users bear just as much.

Consider a carbon tax.  This would work by making carbon emitting goods more expensive and induce individuals to switch their consumption basket to goods who's production emits less carbon.  But if this possible with the existence of a carbon tax, it is just as possible without one.

Anyone with the cash can switch out their gas stove for an electric one.  A ban on gas stoves is not a necessary precondition for this action.

[Admiral Yi]

Nope. I even gave a conservative number despite it making a ridiculously broad range.
Googling a bit more I see a figure of 9% purely for the production side... Which is still quite a lot more than what you or I come up with.
And that's a ridiculous niche to limit their output to.

If I lock you in a room with only cola to drink then sure you could choose not to drink the cola... But you're not getting anything else and drinking is a fundamental human need.

The world isn't black and white. To blame consumers 100% for consuming their only choice is bad logic.

If 20-45% is a conservative number what do you mean by 9% only on the production side?  Oil producers only have a production side.  The consumption side is someone else

Who exactly is blaming consumers 100%?

[Josquius]

Who exactly is blaming consumers 100%?

You. As in the bit above this in your post.

If 20-45% is a conservative number what do you mean by 9% only on the production side?  Oil producers only have a production side.  The consumption side is someone else

So they pump the oil and sell it and then any use of that oil is 100% the fault of consumers?

[Admiral Yi]

You. As in the bit above this in your post.

Please be a little more vague.

So they pump the oil and sell it and then any use of that oil is 100% the fault of consumers?

It's certainly not 100% the responsibility of the oil companies.

[garbon]

When in the history of the modern world has customer action resulted in a noticable impact on a sustained crisis absent significant government policy? [I'm also interested in pre-modern examples as a nerdy tangent, but I don't think they're going to be particularly relevant to the current situation, if they exist]

If the solution to the climate change crisis is to rely on individual customer action, I hope you can point to a relevant example where that approach has been successful.

Jared Diamond gives a few examples of bottom up ecosystem preservation and population stabilization in his book Collapse.  The New Guinea highlands is the best example.

Anymore detail on this? I tried to google Jared Diamond and New Guinea but didn't really see much apart from his work and interest in New Guinea.

[Josquius]

You. As in the bit above this in your post.

Please be a little more vague.

I mean, I directly said the person who is claiming this and showed the evidence of this... Is that what vague is?

It's certainly not 100% the responsibility of the oil companies.

Well thats evasive.
So just to make it clear; do you think the use of fossil fuels is 100% the fault of the end user? - not the power plant, the oil company, the government, or any other factor, its all the fault of you sitting there in your room using your computer?