
I work in the environmental movement. I don’t care if you recycle - panic
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal
======
tathougies
> I hated the industries that placed him

People need to take responsibility at some point. All of us enable these
industries. Without consumers purchasing their product directly, or indirectly
(for example, via electric cars that use electricity derived from fossil
fuels), these companies would not be in business. They started their
businesses because there was demand for their product; industries do not
create demand. They can augment it, certainly, but some level of demand must
exist.

Moreover, half of these environmental disasters are driven by directly by
people wanting to purchase more stuff for less money.

~~~
deogeo
> People need to take responsibility at some point.

Such as by enacting environmental laws.

Advocating for boycotts as the only course of action is equivalent to letting
the behavior continue, because they hardly ever work. If you want results, you
need collective action - i.e. laws.

~~~
tathougies
Enacting environmental laws enforces a boycott by forcing individuals to
consume less of the thing. Any regulation on oil (which I'm not particularly
opposed to) has the effect of increasing the prices of the things derived from
it, which forces less consumption since people cannot afford it. Either way,
the oil company is harmed. A similar thing can be achieved (albeit with more
money for other government programs) by placing a consumption tax on oil and
oil-based products. Great! But, that does not obviate anyone of the fact that
their desire for oil-based products is what keeps these billion dollar
companies alive. That is the reason why the exist

The article places the blame for the current situation on the oil companies.
This is ridiculous. The oil companies started to meet a demand, not because
some group of people met and decided to ruin the environment and then convince
people they needed oil, which is what anyone accepting the article's main
point has to believe.

~~~
julvo
I don't think it's that simple anymore, as there are other forces at play. The
political influence of large, established industries can make sure that things
stay as they are and the consumer demands will be met by them, not by new
technologies. People don't demand _fuel_ cars, they demand _affordable,
reliable long range_ cars.

Same holds for electricity, people don't demand electricity from a specific
source. But currently some sources meet the demands more than others.
Legislation could lead to alternative sources becoming better at meeting
people's demands i.e. becoming cheaper, reliable etc.

Generally, large industries have momentum which keeps them going, and
therefore the way the meet demand is not necessarily the optimal way for
consumers/the environment.

~~~
tathougies
> Legislation could lead to alternative sources becoming better at meeting
> people's demands i.e. becoming cheaper, reliable etc.

So the argument here is we can legislate scientific progress?

That's ridiculous

~~~
deogeo
Indirectly, you can. Fund research, or change regulations/taxes to make more
environmentally friendly sources cheaper (if you're of a libertarian bent, you
can think of this as pricing in the externalities). Since the alternative
energy source is now cheaper, it receives more private funding, both for
capacity construction, and for research.

~~~
tathougies
Okay, but in none of these scenarios is the 'oil industry' the bad guy. They
are simply one industry providing one good that people currently desire with
great fervor. All your solutions, ultimately still require personal change.
That is fine, since that's the way this will get solved, but none of your
points even make much sense.

For example, in my area, our electricity is already generated cheaply by
renewables, but we end up being required to pay the state mandated electricity
company for 'distribution'. This unnecessary intrusion into the free market on
behalf of the state is ridiculous, but again, the oil industry isn't to blame.
Firstly, because the utility company is not an oil company, and secondly,
because the ultimate bad guy is the state, not any private company.

------
crimsonalucard
It's a strange problem. Your actions individually are inconsequential.
Logically your individual contribution to the environment is minimal vs the
benefite you gain from using energy intensive resources. Thus it is actually
logical for you to drive a car or use energy.

Each individual acting in his or her self interest in a rational way brings
irrational destruction as a collective action. That is the tragedy. The
tragedy of the commons.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

~~~
ianai
It’s also a problem too large to place solely at the hands individual
consumers or decision makers. The political economy is rigged against the
99.999999999%. Look how hard he US is fighting against changes to simply
decrease gun mass killings and violence. Even if all the voters in the
democratic-ish countries voted as a bloc, it wouldn’t be enough. Countries
like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China and the international mega corporations
can/will override those choices with their choices and endowments.

He closed his article with this:

“All I need you to do is want a livable future. This is your planet, and no
one can advocate for it like you can. No one can protect it like you can.”

It would take a Herculean effort to make a dent in this. Every act of the
industrial revolution through to today has contributed to the carbon in the
air. It will literally take more than all of the energy expended over all that
time and those actions to sequester the carbon released since the industrial
revolution. And not even that would get us back to where the planet was before
we started releasing carbon.

~~~
sokoloff
> The political economy is rigged against the 99.999999999%.

You realize that's ~13x than the number of people on Earth, right? If anything
was rigged against everyone but the singular top person in the world, it would
only be rigged against the bottom 99.999999987% (vs 99.999999999%)

~~~
ianai
That’s well within the tolerances for my eye-ball guesstimate.

------
TimTheTinker
Best quote:

> When you consider that the same IPCC report outlined that the vast majority
> of global greenhouse gas emissions come from just a handful of corporations
> — aided and abetted by the world’s most powerful governments, including the
> US — it’s victim blaming, plain and simple.

------
perfunctory
> Stop obsessing over your environmental “sins.” Fight the oil and gas
> industry instead.

To be honest, I don't really know how I personally can fight oil and gas
industry. But I know how to stop driving. And flying.

