a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by WanderingEng
WanderingEng  ·  1293 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: September 9, 2020

    but you control 100% of the demand that you are responsible for

You're talking about Exxon, but I'll start with an easier counter example of electricity (for obvious reasons). I have little to no control over the energy sources that respond to my electric demand. My refrigerator will definitely kick on here in a bit. That isn't usage I can eliminate by biking or walking. When it does, fossil fuel plants will increase output and add to carbon emissions because all the zero emissions generation is already at max output. Having government support for zero emission, dispatchable energy sources can change that, but I as a user cannot. I can't vote with my money because I need my food to stay cold.

For transportation, I think there are similarities. I need to drive places. Food is again an obvious one, and work is another. Is it possible for me to live near work and groceries so I could walk or bike most of the year? Maybe. Is it practical? Not really. Is it possible for everyone to do? Probably not. So I think it again falls to governments to support things like public transportation and electric car infrastructure.

Further, we're talking about this and aware our actions and usages have impacts. But most people don't. How do we get them to do better? I argue it's again government to educate and provide means to have them change without even knowing (such as cleaner electricity, cleaner supply chain, and EVs as convenient as gas).

    ExxonMobil doesn't profit by releasing carbon dioxide, they profit by selling you gas.

I can't agree with this more. But I look at it kind of like using drugs. Arresting drug users has little effect on stopping drug use. Acting to push out suppliers while also providing individuals with means to not get sucked into drug use (e.g. social programs) sees better results. We're the drug users, and even if some of us get clean too many others won't.





wasoxygen  ·  1293 days ago  ·  link  ·  

My main point is that blaming the corporations is a cop-out. The corporations do what they do because of customer demand. As long as people offer money for gasoline, there is a strong incentive to produce gasoline, even if Exxon is persecuted. We are the ones burning the fuels and releasing the carbon.

A carbon tax would be a more efficient way to reduce carbon emissions, but people don't want to pay the price to achieve the goal, they want someone else to pay.

There are familiar ways to reduce consumption, whatever the composition of the energy source. Good old Energy Star is a starting point. You can combine trips, make your next car a more efficient model, eat less meat.

    Having government support for zero emission, dispatchable energy sources can change that, but I as a user cannot.

But do you have a way to change government? It's easy to imagine the way things should be, just as we can imagine a world running on solar power. I think you have a better chance of changing a few people's minds here than changing government behavior.

    Further, we're talking about this and aware our actions and usages have impacts. But most people don't. How do we get them to do better? I argue it's again government to educate and provide means to have them change without even knowing (such as cleaner electricity, cleaner supply chain, and EVs as convenient as gas).

You may have heard of the National Energy Education Development Project; I hadn't. How about energy.gov or the Center for Energy Education or The Fourth Generation. The information is out there, but it's hard to get people to pay attention. A carbon tax would get people's attention and provide incentive aligned with the goal.

    Arresting drug users has little effect on stopping drug use.

Do you have evidence for this claim? "In the United States, legalization has been associated with increased use by adults, but not by youth." one source

I have a strong presumption that when something costs more, people buy less of it. A carbon tax isn't ideal, but in my view it has fewer disadvantages than alternatives, and has the advantage of probably working if the goal is to reduce carbon.