I’d even make the argument that these companies are directly contributing to the deaths of billions through climate change, the extinction of entire species… It’s not hyperbole. As such, if they refuse to stop what they’re doing, rather than let a relatively small number of people effectively decide the fate of everyone, isn’t it our (‘our’ as in ‘everyone else’s’) moral obligation to stop them, through whatever means necessary?
If they were threatening to launch nuclear missiles or something, we’d agree that without a doubt they should be stopped and no methods were too extreme, so why is it any different just because the method they’re using is slower?
This is a flawed take. The fossil firms sell because everyone wants to buy, and everyone wants to buy because the world is still absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. Stuff won’t move without diesel and most of the calories humankind grows needs nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process.
This is also a s flawed take. Why does everyone want to buy? Years of propaganda and lobbying eliminated any possible alternatives. The USA was covered in rail and tram tracks in urban areas, most of which was removed and replaced with automobile infrastructure.
Without haber bosch 70% of food production would be gone. People buy food, as food is essential for survival.
Plastics are made from fossil fuels. Plastics are used, for example, in waterproofing houses, vapor barriers, etc. People use houses for shelter from the cold, rain, heat, …
I only picked the two biggest things I could think of that require fossil fuels, but you’re right. Plastics are used for everything because they are a wonder material. And so are fluorocarbons by the way, that’s why they’re also everywhere.
What’s your proposal - let them just keep drilling, keep pumping, and keep polluting? It’s “legal” for them to do it, so there should be no guardrails, no accountability? They’ve been pushing back heavily on even legislation to make them pay a considerable amount towards cleanup efforts. The article states:
“Despite global climate commitments, a small group of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers are significantly increasing production and emissions. The research highlights the disproportionate impact these companies have on the climate crisis and supports efforts to enforce corporate responsibility.”
Regulating the companies would at least be better than just pulling the plug on fossil fuels (that would in the current situation basically stop the world and cause untold amounts of famine and misery).
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we just immediately pull the plug on fossil fuels entirely, that’s not at all realistic, but heavily taxing them and using the revenue from those taxes to go towards cleanup and green energy would be a step in the right direction. The reliance on fossil fuels might drop considerably if the price of gas increased heavily. To your point, it’s an industry because people buy it, and people buy it because it’s the most cost effective solution in many cases. If it was no longer cost effective, people would gravitate towards green alternatives where possible.
Increasing fuel prices would increase the cost of everything else too, lowering living standards globally. It would effectively be a flat tax for the whole humankind.
I agree this would accelerate the green transition, but there’s currently no direct replacement for diesel/heavy fuel oil (which container ships, heavy trucks and tractors require) and natural gas. Well there is biodiesel but that requires turning fields from growing food to growing oil plants needed for the fuel.
Current battery tech is still only satisfactory for personal transportation.
How much do you think extreme climate change is going to lower living standards globally?
If personal transport and home heating and whatnot were transitioned fully to green energy, and fossil fuels were used exclusively for large-scale shipping, it would be a huge net gain.
I’d even make the argument that these companies are directly contributing to the deaths of billions through climate change, the extinction of entire species… It’s not hyperbole. As such, if they refuse to stop what they’re doing, rather than let a relatively small number of people effectively decide the fate of everyone, isn’t it our (‘our’ as in ‘everyone else’s’) moral obligation to stop them, through whatever means necessary?
If they were threatening to launch nuclear missiles or something, we’d agree that without a doubt they should be stopped and no methods were too extreme, so why is it any different just because the method they’re using is slower?
This is a flawed take. The fossil firms sell because everyone wants to buy, and everyone wants to buy because the world is still absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. Stuff won’t move without diesel and most of the calories humankind grows needs nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process.
This is also a s flawed take. Why does everyone want to buy? Years of propaganda and lobbying eliminated any possible alternatives. The USA was covered in rail and tram tracks in urban areas, most of which was removed and replaced with automobile infrastructure.
Without haber bosch 70% of food production would be gone. People buy food, as food is essential for survival.
Plastics are made from fossil fuels. Plastics are used, for example, in waterproofing houses, vapor barriers, etc. People use houses for shelter from the cold, rain, heat, …
I only picked the two biggest things I could think of that require fossil fuels, but you’re right. Plastics are used for everything because they are a wonder material. And so are fluorocarbons by the way, that’s why they’re also everywhere.
Plastics need a minimal amount of oil compared to what’s burnt for fuel.
I can recommend the book “How the World Really Works” by Vaclav Smil for an approacheable way to learn about this without over simplification.
Thanks, looks interesting.
What’s your proposal - let them just keep drilling, keep pumping, and keep polluting? It’s “legal” for them to do it, so there should be no guardrails, no accountability? They’ve been pushing back heavily on even legislation to make them pay a considerable amount towards cleanup efforts. The article states:
What would you have us do?
Regulating the companies would at least be better than just pulling the plug on fossil fuels (that would in the current situation basically stop the world and cause untold amounts of famine and misery).
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we just immediately pull the plug on fossil fuels entirely, that’s not at all realistic, but heavily taxing them and using the revenue from those taxes to go towards cleanup and green energy would be a step in the right direction. The reliance on fossil fuels might drop considerably if the price of gas increased heavily. To your point, it’s an industry because people buy it, and people buy it because it’s the most cost effective solution in many cases. If it was no longer cost effective, people would gravitate towards green alternatives where possible.
Personally I’d give them a fixed timescale to stop production. Your don’t pull the plug tomorrow. You just say when the plug will be pulled.
The world will pivot.
Yeah, that’s completely reasonable. Or mandate reductions on a fixed schedule, e.g. 50% of today’s numbers in 3 years, 0% in 6.
Increasing fuel prices would increase the cost of everything else too, lowering living standards globally. It would effectively be a flat tax for the whole humankind. I agree this would accelerate the green transition, but there’s currently no direct replacement for diesel/heavy fuel oil (which container ships, heavy trucks and tractors require) and natural gas. Well there is biodiesel but that requires turning fields from growing food to growing oil plants needed for the fuel. Current battery tech is still only satisfactory for personal transportation.
How much do you think extreme climate change is going to lower living standards globally?
If personal transport and home heating and whatnot were transitioned fully to green energy, and fossil fuels were used exclusively for large-scale shipping, it would be a huge net gain.