Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

No, it didn't! And if you seriously consider "what actually (!) happened," you actually know that it isn't actually true.
You have been drinking the Kool-Aid served to you by the fossil-fuel industry, and much like Stout and Myriad you are now helping Big Oil spread the lie.

Big Oil didn't exist until the 1850's. Before that we had 'Big Coal', 'Big Wood', and big animals. During all this time production was driven by demand. Apart from animals, manual labor was all we had, and nobody was doing anything they didn't have to. You didn't chop down a forest for firewood and then promote the use of open fires, you chopped down what you needed and then went back for more when the woodpile ran low.

Only at the start of the petroleum industry was there a temporary glut of oil in a few places where it gushed out of the ground by itself. But oil companies didn't have to wait long for demand to surge as new things were developed that made use of it. Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908. By 1924 the price had dropped to US$290, equivalent to ~$5,700 today. At that price many people could afford one, so sales skyrocketed. By 1927 15 million had been sold.

But did Ford and Big Oil work together to create an artificial demand for gasoline? No.

HENRY FORD... had a deep distrust for the giants of the oil industry... Ford realized the energy potential of farm alcohol. In the 1880s... he powered one of his earliest automobiles, the quadricycle, on alcohol. By the time the first Model As were manufactured, he designed them so that they could be fueled by the farmers themselves.

You could say that Ford created demand for gasoline by producing an affordable motor vehicle that used it (and introducing a 40 hour working week with higher pay, so his employees could afford one and have the time to drive it - which Ford stated was his goal). Or you could say the potential demand for motor cars was already there, waiting for someone to tap into it.

But what was Big Oil doing at the time?

The western oil boom, along with the automobile, was capturing the imagination of the nation. Over 400 oil companies sprang up out of the oil fields and their wealth financed the construction of new cities such as Tulsa and Houston.

You think all those oil companies didn't 'spring up' to met a demand?

Yes, they would actually "do this,"and they actually do "create the demand."

OK. Time to stop the bare assertions and provide a cite for your claim. Show us when, where and how Big Oil created a demand that wasn't there. Just to be clear, that means a demand for 106 million barrels of oil per day that wouldn't be there if Big Oil hadn't tricked us into buying it.

Your main mistake is that from the very beginning of your history lesson,
you deliberately confuse "the demand for energy" with a demand for fossil fuels

You know what wood is, right? Not a fossil fuel. When we had plenty of it we didn't use much coal or oil. Only when it was running out did we switch to fossil fuels. The demand for energy was there, coal and oil filled the gap caused by humans in general depleting a renewable resource faster than it could regenerate.

Why do you think the fossil-fuel industry is doing its utmost to greenwash its pollution?

Because they don't want to be sanctioned for harming the environment. This isn't about demand, which until recently has shown no indication of slowing down. It's about the fear of regulation and taxation. Even now demand is only weakening a little bit, and that's mostly due to high prices caused by restricted supply.

Ironically, BP's effort to transition towards renewables was quashed by the massive fines they had to pay after the Deepwater Horizon incident. The compay lost half its value and had return to its 'core' business to survive. The only reason that rig was there is that all the easier places to drill were used up. They wouldn't have risked it if there wasn't demand.

There have only been a few times when supply exceeded demand. Most recently during Covid lockdowns, and before that the 2008 financial crisis. What did Big Oil do during these times? Simply waited for the demand to recover. Having a greenwashing blitz wouldn't have helped.

I see petrol's back up to NZ$3.60/l in Hastings today, up from ~$2.50 before the Iran war. Yesterday I counted 3 EVs on the road (not including my own) compared to several hundred fossil-fueled vehicles. Raising the price of petrol by 44% hasn't resulted in people driving less or swtching to EVs, or walking or biking either. Everybody's just paying the higher price and waiting for it to come down.

On the plus side one petrol station here recently installed 4 EV charging bays. It's a start. I guess they are just trying to increase demand for electricity though, because I don't see the chargers being used much. Typical of Big Oil to push somethig onto us that we don't want!

 

[Stout]

Yes.

It's an aspirational target, not a point-of-no-return target.

The fact that climate change deniers wilfully misinterpreted it should come as no surprise, given that they have wilfully misinterpreted absolutely everything else about the subject.

1.5-degree target - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A very highly oversold "aspirational number" which "deniers" have nothing to do with. This is all media and activism pushing this target.

Here, look, from 2019, back when climate change was actually a big deal. Back before the pandemic that gave the world a real look at what reduced emissions actually involved.

You really can't get much lamer than invoking "deniers" while defending the idea that people should burn as many fossil fuels as they like while waiting for somebody, anybody to do something. The USA recently caused the ultimate carbon tax by spiking fuel prices, and who doesn't like a carbon tax amirite?

 

[Stout]

A buddy of mine bought an EV a few months back. He lives in a rented apartment without any assess to charge his car at home and says it's ridiculously easy to charge using existing public infrastructure as it's pretty much everywhere, cheap as chips, and no lineups waiting for a port.

Like our extensive AAA bike lane system, the infrastructure is in place and we're just waiting for the demand to ramp up.

 

[a_unique_person]

A very highly oversold "aspirational number" which "deniers" have nothing to do with. This is all media and activism pushing this target.

Here, look, from 2019, back when climate change was actually a big deal. Back before the pandemic that gave the world a real look at what reduced emissions actually involved.

You really can't get much lamer than invoking "deniers" while defending the idea that people should burn as many fossil fuels as they like while waiting for somebody, anybody to do something. The USA recently caused the ultimate carbon tax by spiking fuel prices, and who doesn't like a carbon tax amirite?

No, your are dead wrong. The intention was never to ban fossil fuel use instantly for everyone. The plan acknowledged the dependence on fossil fuels and the need for a gradual transition. Your ignorant strawman arguments are tiresome.

 

[Stout]

No, your are dead wrong. The intention was never to ban fossil fuel use instantly for everyone. The plan acknowledged the dependence on fossil fuels and the need for a gradual transition. Your ignorant strawman arguments are tiresome.

Nowhere did I ever make that claim. I know what the plan entailed all I'm saying, and all I've ever said is the transition away from fossil fuels isn't happening nowhere near fast enough because most people aren't willing to make that transition at the rate required to meet these "aspirational numbers". You were saying something about ignorant strawman arguements.

I know it's a difficult concept for some people to grasp as they're so locked into the climate propaganda that tells them individual effort isn't required, all they need to do is step into the ideological traces, accept the bit and giddyup. That's worked out really well hasn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Nowhere did I ever make that claim. I know what the plan entailed all I'm saying, and all I've ever said is the transition away from fossil fuels isn't happening nowhere near fast enough because most people aren't willing to make that transition at the rate required to meet these "aspirational numbers". You were saying something about ignorant strawman arguements.

I know it's a difficult concept for some people to grasp as they're so locked into the climate propaganda that tells them individual effort isn't required, all they need to do is step into the ideological traces, accept the bit and giddyup. That's worked out really well hasn't it?

No. There has been plenty of time to put the proposed price on carbon and use market forces to ease is into a carbon neutral economy. At every step of the way lies, ignorance and greed have been used to impede and reverse most initiatives.

You then talk out of both sides of your mouth. You still can't clearly say if the evidence is that global warming should be minimised. You just continually point at the other guy and smirk.

 

[dann]

That's because "the completion" uses enslaved labour and has to install anti-suicide nets outside their iPhone factories. Ain't Communism grand?

I don't really see what your post has to do with global warming. Instead, you tell us that Apple outsources the production of iPhones to factories using enslaved labor and installing anti-suicide nets outside the iPhone factories.
Ain't capitalism grand?!

You missed out on what my post was about. It wasn't about how grand communism is or isn't. It was about this:

So while a lot of countries are subsidizing fossil fuels, i.e. the cause of global warming, what exactly is the problem with the alleged subsidization of the alleged overproduction of EVs, batteries, and solar panels?

The problem is that have been subsidizing fossil fuels instead of investing in the development and "production capacity of electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels" and thus can't keep up with the competition:

Every penny invested in 'beautiful, clean coal' instead of in "production capacity of electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels" serves the owners of fossil fuel and their bribed politicians and nobody else while destroying the climate.
It's how Western capitalism is digging its own grave.

And it came with receipts.
Notice also what those "14 countries – all members of the Group of 20 [and two of them being &] – plus the EU" complained about. For some obscure reason they didn't complain about "factories using enslaved labor and installing anti-suicide nets outside the iPhone factories."
Instead, those 14 countries complained about alleged Chinese overproduction threatening the business interests of companies in the those fourteen Group 20 countries.
Ain't capitalism grand?

 

[dann]

Big Oil didn't exist until the 1850's. Before that we had 'Big Coal', 'Big Wood', and big animals. During all this time production was driven by demand. Apart from animals, manual labor was all we had, and nobody was doing anything they didn't have to. You didn't chop down a forest for firewood and then promote the use of open fires, you chopped down what you needed and then went back for more when the woodpile ran low.

No, there wasn't "'Big Coal', 'Big Wood', and big animals'" "about a million years ago,' which was your original claim, because there was no chain of supply and demand. The 'supplier' and 'demander' was one and the same tribe of people, if we're generous, or hominids, if we're not. Anyway, they didn't chop down a forest for firewood because they wouldn't have been able to. They most likely gathered straw and twigs, and there are no signs of them chopping "down what you needed and then went back for more when the woodpile ran low."
They were ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hunters and gatherers who wouldn't have known how to make a woodpile (yes, firewood has to be made out of chopped down trees!) and let it run low.
There's a reason why your story now doesn't begin "about a million years ago" but not until the 1850s, i.e. not until any talk of a surging demand begins to make some kind of sense, which is also why you don't really become specific about anything until the 20th century

Only at the start of the petroleum industry was there a temporary glut of oil in a few places where it gushed out of the ground by itself. But oil companies didn't have to wait long for demand to surge as new things were developed that made use of it. Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908. By 1924 the price had dropped to US$290, equivalent to ~$5,700 today. At that price many people could afford one, so sales skyrocketed. By 1927 15 million had been sold.

In your fairy tale you start out with oil companies already existing and having to wait "for demand to surge" as if that is how anything works! "New things" being developed while the oil industry is waiting for them to increase the demand for oil makes about as much sense as sailboats being developed and thus creating a surging demand for wind.

I'll comment on the rest when I have more time = not today.
For now, just this to your sarcastic ending, which shows something very different from what you intended it to do:

On the plus side one petrol station here recently installed 4 EV charging bays. It's a start. I guess they are just trying to increase demand for electricity though, because I don't see the chargers being used much. Typical of Big Oil to push something onto us that we don't want!

Yes, isn't it amazing? People don't buy electric vehicles that they can't charge, and until they can, nobody buys them! A few years ago your posts were full of bitter complaints about other NZ drivers who stuck with their petrol-driven cars for no reason at all. Now the new charging station will make people consider buying one.
It's strange how the consumer mindset works in this respect, isn't it? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, too!)

For several years, my own (pretty short) street, Smallegade,* has had a couple of charging stations (the red-and-white symbol), some above ground, some below. They are almost always occupied. They weren't, at first. There are several others in the neighborhood. That is how the demand for electric vehicles is actually created. People didn't buy electric vehicles in advance, 'waiting for charging supply to surge'.
Like I have shown so many times in this thread: Without the suitable infrastructure encouraging bicycling, people don't ride bikes. Even Stout's stories about bicycling prove the point. The same thing goes for electric vehicles. If charging them isn't feasible, people don't buy them. It's a no-brainer.
* The Google maps photo is several years old, but some of the symbols are new.

By the way, congratulations with the from Stout!