NY files suit against oil companies.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Instead of suppressing research into battery, wind and solar technology, US companies could have developed the technology and be in the forefront both scientifically and economically. Instead, our educational systems have been under attack, weakened, and research under funded. Capitalists have become powerful and their selfish interests are working towards eliminating the good nature of the Earth. Rapid changes are occurring, and we are not in control.

This is the heart of my arguments wrt Big Oil. We could have been smart, and developed alternatives alongside fossil fuels if our purpose (generating affordable energy) had been focused on, but the influence of all that profit unfairly and unnaturally skewed the market and sheltered the oil industry from pressures that would have automatically led to a more diverse energy economy. We've long bitched about being dependent, and this is a huge reason why. 

We really need to adjust our focus. I truly believe that we need to start approaching more endeavors on a for-purpose basis, rather than a for-profit one. If you fulfill a meaningful and needed purpose first, the profit will come and should be all the sweeter for actually helping more of society.

[EdEarl]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is the heart of my arguments wrt Big Oil. We could have been smart, and developed alternatives alongside fossil fuels if our purpose (generating affordable energy) had been focused on, but the influence of all that profit unfairly and unnaturally skewed the market and sheltered the oil industry from pressures that would have automatically led to a more diverse energy economy. We've long bitched about being dependent, and this is a huge reason why. 

We really need to adjust our focus. I truly believe that we need to start approaching more endeavors on a for-purpose basis, rather than a for-profit one. If you fulfill a meaningful and needed purpose first, the profit will come and should be all the sweeter for actually helping more of society.

I think much of the world agrees with you. However, the oligarchs see only that their competition will not invest in a venture that has little or no profit potential. In the long run, as corporations build "lights out" factories the cost of goods will drop towards zero. Perhaps one day it will make sense to invest in a venture without profit potential.

[Area54]

On 14/01/2018 at 11:49 PM, swansont said:

But if they lied to you about the potential danger of doing so, you can't have made an informed decision about whether to investigate other options.

For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat.

I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

[EdEarl]

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat.

I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

I think the majority of people understand, but I agree that those who are ignorant need to hear how much trouble we are in. Among those we rail against, the ones with big money are more important to educate so they modify their behavior.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Perhaps one day it will make sense to invest in a venture without profit potential.

And to be clear, I think there's a LOT of profit involved in for-purpose ventures. 

What needs to change is our acceptance of for-profit behavior. Of course the corporations are going to lobby to give themselves an unfair advantage IF THE SYSTEM ALLOWS THEM TO. It's like sponsoring a marathon race and then letting a small percentage of the contestants set the course. Of course they'll choose terrain that favors them and hampers opponents. I think it's up to us to set the course, not to favor the runners, but to favor those who benefit from having the race in the first place. Forget making it easier for the runners; they are mighty athletes and do what they do better than anyone. 

Imagine the innovations we'd have now if Reagan hadn't destroyed Carter's solar dreams, if Big Oil had worked hand in hand with alternative energy producers and government scientists to focus on creating effective, affordable, and sustainable energy grids instead of just profitable ones. The more profitable the industry, the more we have to be careful it's not allowed to unnaturally protect itself from competition. This is an area where I feel like a conservative Republican; the market shouldn't show favoritism, and it's better for all if competition is encouraged.

[EdEarl]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And to be clear, I think there's a LOT of profit involved in for-purpose ventures. 

What needs to change is our acceptance of for-profit behavior. Of course the corporations are going to lobby to give themselves an unfair advantage IF THE SYSTEM ALLOWS THEM TO. It's like sponsoring a marathon race and then letting a small percentage of the contestants set the course. Of course they'll choose terrain that favors them and hampers opponents. I think it's up to us to set the course, not to favor the runners, but to favor those who benefit from having the race in the first place. Forget making it easier for the runners; they are mighty athletes and do what they do better than anyone. 

Imagine the innovations we'd have now if Reagan hadn't destroyed Carter's solar dreams, if Big Oil had worked hand in hand with alternative energy producers and government scientists to focus on creating effective, affordable, and sustainable energy grids instead of just profitable ones. The more profitable the industry, the more we have to be careful it's not allowed to unnaturally protect itself from competition. This is an area where I feel like a conservative Republican; the market shouldn't show favoritism, and it's better for all if competition is encouraged.

The status quo is not motivating the oligarchs as you suggest. What do you think will change their motivation.

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Area54 said:

For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat.

Not a great argument, imo. You're begging the question that people in general should be smart and educated enough to withstand the effects of concerted and heavily funded marketing campaigns. You're saying people in general have all the tools at their disposal to pierce the veil of lies and deception and spin tactics employed by these corporate behemoths. By taking offense at an argument aimed at "being conned", you assume it's not really possible to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone over ten years old. Why would the oil industry spend billions on marketing themselves as naturists if it didn't con a LOT of people successfully?

38 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

How can I show you how incomplete this stance is? 

Oil's contribution (they sold petroleum products) + Consumer contribution (we bought petroleum products) = 0 (they cancel out)

But there's also this:

Oil's deception (they used their profits to unfairly squelch competition, produce fake science reports, lobby for favorable taxation that further inhibited alternatives, and deceived people in many of the same ways the tobacco industry deceived people) + Consumer deception (what has the consumer done to rival what Big Oil has done in the area of deception? What is balancing this part of the equation in your mind?) = ? (you seem to say this equation balances as well, but can you show me where?).

18 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

The status quo is not motivating the oligarchs as you suggest. What do you think will change their motivation.

Regulation. Corporations are chartered to work within the law, and compliance with it is supposed to be built in, so we determine the ways we want private industry to behave through regulations. Citizens abide by laws, and corporations are bound by regulations. We need to stop letting extremist businesspeople decide how they're regulated, just like we know it's a bad thing to let shady citizens determine which laws affect them.

[EdEarl]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Regulation. Corporations are chartered to work within the law, and compliance with it is supposed to be built in, so we determine the ways we want private industry to behave through regulations. Citizens abide by laws, and corporations are bound by regulations. We need to stop letting extremist businesspeople decide how they're regulated, just like we know it's a bad thing to let shady citizens determine which laws affect them.

Regulation has failed and cannot be recovered and improved in time, IMO, to affect the climate change in time. We need the overthrow of citizens united to have much effect in the US. There is as much chance AI will force prices and profits to zero, IMO. We will find out how much people have awakened during next year's congressional election, and we face four more years of a Republican President. The rate at which people are signing the Wolf-PAC petition is slower than I'd hoped, and still shows people not acting in their own interests. I hear rumblings about the population tuning in on politics, but I am underwhelmed.

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Regulation has failed

... whenever we've allowed those it affects most to determine how sheltered they'll be from it. Perhaps regulations with purpose instead of profit as the priority would be measurably more successful. We can't know if we don't give it a fighting chance.

I use the same argument for welfare programs. Don't condemn them until we've tried a system more geared to purpose instead of profit. 

[EdEarl]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

... whenever we've allowed those ...

The wealthy are buying elections and oppose the government do anything for the people. And, they disenfranchise as many voters as possible. Do you really feel an election can recover the will of the people over big money?

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

The wealthy are buying elections and oppose the government do anything for the people. And, they disenfranchise as many voters as possible. Do you really feel an election can recover the will of the people over big money?

I wouldn't have thought a single election could have done so much harm to the US a couple of years ago. I think it's possible a single election could do an equal amount of good. And I think the People in a democracy are the key.

[EdEarl]

Because it is difficult to develop a consensus, doing good is very hard. There are innumerable ways to do bad, and as we have seen, the public opposed the recent tax bill, but it was signed into law anyway.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Because it is difficult to develop a consensus, doing good is very hard.

For this we need a for-purpose media that doesn't drain the momentum that builds consensus, that doesn't distract us with entertainment profit agendas when we desperately need to be informed. There's a lot stacked against us, and we need to deconstruct the obstacles that keep us from seeing a better long-range, big picture perspective on how our societies will proceed from here. Is wealth going to determine our value as humans instead of intelligence, compassion, and cooperation? 

[EdEarl]

It seems we both agree the system is rigged and it will be difficult to change for the better; moreover, we must work toward reform.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat.

I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

It's not about you, though, it's about the oil companies. Many people believe what the oil companies have said. Shouldn't these companies be legally liable for lying to the people, and to the government?

[Area54]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

It's not about you, though, it's about the oil companies. Many people believe what the oil companies have said. Shouldn't these companies be legally liable for lying to the people, and to the government?

Then we seem unable to agree. It is about me (And you, and everyone else.) My philosophy prohibits me from blaming others for those things for which I am responsible. That is fundamental for me. It is open to modification, but nothing said in this thread has even dented it's outer shell.

And I have, at no point said or suggested that the oil companies should not also be held to account. Simply do not use them as an excuse for our own questionable behaviour.

@Phi for All My response above addresses generically, if not specifically, those of your most recent reply to me.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

Then we seem unable to agree. It is about me (And you, and everyone else.) My philosophy prohibits me from blaming others for those things for which I am responsible. That is fundamental for me. It is open to modification, but nothing said in this thread has even dented it's outer shell.

And I have, at no point said or suggested that the oil companies should not also be held to account. Simply do not use them as an excuse for our own questionable behaviour.

The whole point of this thread is whether they should to be held to account. 

[Area54]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

The whole point of this thread is whether they should to be held to account. 

And I specifically addressed this in my first post in the thread when I said: " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."

I had nothing further to add. My point was made: hold the oil companies to account; don't ignore our own responsibility.

All of my subsequent posts have been clarifications made necessary by posts addressing those comments, or my later replies. I'll repeat my first remark again, then leave the last word to others. " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."

 

[EdEarl]

23 hours ago, Area54 said:

... I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

We were an early adopter of hybrid technology, and we have been driving the same hybrid for 15 years, because better choices have only recently come to the market. Here, mass transit is virtually useless. I understand my contribution to global warming, and know a hybrid is not the solution. Do you rail against me or does my understanding excuse my use of oil over the past 60 years.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Area54 said:

And I specifically addressed this in my first post in the thread when I said: " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."

I had nothing further to add. My point was made: hold the oil companies to account; don't ignore our own responsibility.

All of my subsequent posts have been clarifications made necessary by posts addressing those comments, or my later replies. I'll repeat my first remark again, then leave the last word to others. " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."

You claim your stance is open to modification, but you're dancing around modifying it based on the deceptions practised by Big Oil. I dealt with your stance. They made the gasoline, we bought the gasoline. That's where your argument ends, and it doesn't address the manipulation, lies, and outright predatory practices the oil industry has used to stay dominant. 

Your point was made but was inadequate. Can you see that? I even made a counter argument into an equation to show the parts you're ignoring.

I really don't understand your willing complicity in the exchange. You were acting in good faith, Big Oil lied to make you think they were doing the same, and you think that's OK?!

[Area54]

On 17/01/2018 at 6:58 PM, Phi for All said:

I really don't understand your willing complicity in the exchange. You were acting in good faith, Big Oil lied to make you think they were doing the same, and you think that's OK?!

Where did you get this from? I'm not here to argue strawmen. If my position was poorly expressed then I am at a loss, since I've tried repeatedly to clarify it.

1. In what way was I acting in good faith? I have been conscious to a greater or lesser extent that my choices of consumption impacted upon the environment from at least my late teens. I have made no mention of "acting in good faith". I have reread each of my posts in this thread and nowhere do I see an implication that I "acted in good faith".

2. I largely ignored everything Big Oil said, since they were clearly biased. However you are correct in one thing. Big Oil and I were doing exactly the same thing: knowlingly injuring the enivornment through our actions. Is that OK? No, of course it isn't. But I and you and pretty much every person, posting here or lurking here (With, I hope, a couple of honourable exceptions) is screwing up the environment and rarely doing much more than lip service to correct it. The difference between you and I appears to be that I accept my guilt. You seem to want to transfer yours.

@EdEarl Great that you are driving a hydrid. Even better that it is one you have kept operating for a decade and a half. However, you are still driving. So, yes, I shall continue to rail against you. Not nearly as strongly as I rail against myself, but evolution doesn't look so good when what you need is revolution.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Where did you get this from?

My whole point was to show that your argument, that both we and Big Oil share complicity in our current situation, ignores the fact that we were given bad info. In using the products they made, we share responsibility, but we didn't lie to them. We acted in good faith as far as that goes, but they lied, they paid for bogus data, they secretly squashed competitors in an often criminal manner that circumvented fair market practices, they used their profits in part to unnaturally keep them on top. We didn't do ANYTHING like that to Big Oil, did we? So your argument that we share responsibility equally seems very weak.

Sorry that wasn't clear the other times I said it, or made an equation out of it. Go ahead and ignore it again and I'll look for some pictures.

[Area54]

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My whole point was to show that your argument, that both we and Big Oil share complicity in our current situation, ignores the fact that we were given bad info. In using the products they made, we share responsibility, but we didn't lie to them. We acted in good faith as far as that goes, but they lied, they paid for bogus data, they secretly squashed competitors in an often criminal manner that circumvented fair market practices, they used their profits in part to unnaturally keep them on top. We didn't do ANYTHING like that to Big Oil, did we? So your argument that we share responsibility equally seems very weak.

Sorry that wasn't clear the other times I said it, or made an equation out of it. Go ahead and ignore it again and I'll look for some pictures.

There is no need to get uppity. Your message was not previously clear.

So, this really is my final point: we've known for decades what oil consumption was doing to the environment. Our contiinued commitment to an energy hungry lifestyle can no longer be blamed on Big Oil. It is accounted for by our own inherent selfishness. If it somehow ease your conscious to pretend it "wasn't your fault" then you are every bit as much a part of the problem as BIg Oil, arguably bigger. (But know I won't be troubling to make that argument.)

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, Area54 said:

So, this really is my final point: we've known for decades what oil consumption was doing to the environment.

Your "final point", which is the same as the other times you've posted it, DOES NOT address what you make me keep reiterating: What "we've known for decades" was NOT the whole picture. We DID NOT "KNOW" everything they were doing to the environment, we were given false data on climate effects, and Big Oil propped its own market up unnaturally based on these deceptions.

That doesn't make us all blameless, I've never said that. I've NEVER said "it's not my fault" (your strawman). But I'm unwilling to let you argue that we share equal culpability without challenging it. If you want to keep saying we're equally to blame, please address the above, as I've asked you to do many times now.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Area54 said:

There is no need to get uppity. Your message was not previously clear.

So, this really is my final point: we've known for decades what oil consumption was doing to the environment. Our contiinued commitment to an energy hungry lifestyle can no longer be blamed on Big Oil. It is accounted for by our own inherent selfishness. If it somehow ease your conscious to pretend it "wasn't your fault" then you are every bit as much a part of the problem as BIg Oil, arguably bigger. (But know I won't be troubling to make that argument.)

What I've said previously alludes to your position. Both sides are complicit for getting into this situation but it's Big Oil that's putting the brakes on doing something about it, or have been. As individuals we need to realise that we are each not an island with no consequences  to one another. Trump's talk of making "America great again" is pure islandism.

Edited January 20, 2018 by StringJunky