Millions of dollars, 10s of millions of dollars, who cares. I just couldn't be arsed to look up the exact figure. Point is, they built it and they didn't come. The way cycling advocates were talking, this place should look like Amsterdam by now.
Now we get whinging complaints like...my office doesn't have a shower, or my office doesn't have secure bike storage and meth heads will steal my bike. The city even opened up a special parkade, just for bikes but it only operates in the summer because in the winter, you guessed it, there's no demand. Shopping malls have followed suit but only in the summer and the parking lots are just full of cars.
And all this road infrastructure people like to complain about? Well, that's for EV drivers too. EV drivers who never ever fail to mention that they drive one like they're some sort of superhero saving the planet.
Can't afford a new EV because the government isn't giving you enough money towards it so you have to buy an ICE instead? Tough ****, buy an ecargo bike, get on to the bike paths and start referring to roads as car sewers like a proper eco warrior. Quite whining, start doing.
Now we're getting somewhere! I am all fortaking action against these businesses.
But taking actual action against these businesses is very different from going vegan, taking cold showers and appealing to business owners and politicians to, please, do the right thing and not drill, drill, drill so much!
The fossil-fuel and auto industries have manipulated people's thinking to the extent where it doesn't even occur to them to try to look outside the box. Much the same way that the tobacco industry made us believe that smoking was healthy.
(By the way, what do you think of the Danish way of taking the cat to the vet or the kids to the ice-hockey arena? Kids love it. I doubt that cats are big fans, though.)
just jack up the price of gas, use it to build public transport directed at low income, and public housing to reduce commute distance.
European carmakers didn't build smaller and more efficient cars out of an asthenic sense - it's because the US monstrosities just cost too much on EU gas prices.
No, I'm not. I don't understand what makes it so difficult for you to understand what I'm saying: Scientists do science. Politicians and captains of industry decide. And most of them don't give a **** what science and/or scientists think or say. If scientists don't say what they want to hear, they buy scientists to say it. Some of them come cheap. You can buy a whole think tank full of them for a pittance.
I can recommend David Lipsky's The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial, which I more or less summarized in this forum last year as I was reading it.
That's literally what you're down to arguing. While it is absolutely true that big polluters have bought some scientists as part of their campaigns to delay climate action, such scientists are in a very small minority among the relevant scientists. Hence why there's an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. Given your actual arguments, you're throwing out EVERYTHING, so long as it doesn't feed your bias.
ETA tag added because this paragraph was added in a 7:28 edit: It's true that some politicians in the pockets of big polluters happily seize upon the work of said bought scientists to justify pushing through the big polluters' wishes, but that's also not all politicians by a long shot. That's sometimes done under the pretense that it's supported by public pressure, too, for that matter, even if that's often about as true as the rest of the time when they try to claim that up is down. You're ever free to look beyond the pretenses and understand why they've put so much effort into fighting to prevent public pressure from getting too intense and to trick people into believing that it doesn't matter, of course.
ETA: Without ongoing public pressure, things like this wouldn't be happening, quite frankly.
You predicted nothing. I pointed out your contradiction in terms: On the one hand, you appear to be aware "that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing." On the other hand, you talk about "victories against it that public pressure made possible."
The contradiction is so obvious that you should be able to see it on your own instead of getting upset and claiming that it is an "insult" when I point it out to you.
I have no idea why you think that this or what preceded it would be in any way acceptable as an argument. Given your choice of arguments, Exxon could be totally bankrupted with fines to be used to fix the damage they've done and that would be no victory at all so long as extraction continues to increase, whatever the reason.
Just like this answer. It is indeed an answer. It still doesn't answer the questions actually asked.
Once more -
What, specifically, do you think would work better?
Regardless of what that supposed solution might be, how would you expect to either implement or maintain it without public pressure on your side?
I have seen NO answer to either of those questions from you. Just you dodging them over and over.
ETA: To be clear, this behavior of yours gives a strong impression that you either have no alternative suggestion, which is where the nothing that Cosmic Yak spoke of comes from, or you're well aware that whatever alternative suggestion you have would be extremely unpopular. Unpopular like mass terrorism or authoritarian dictatorship unpopular.
You're unlikely to save much money by switching supplier at the moment, as most fixed deals are similar to the price-capped variable rates. How to choose the best energy supplier (Which?)
Then there's supply and demand: if people didn't want renewables, businesses would not use them. It's a basic rule of economics: you can't force people to buy something they don't want. You find out what they want, and produce that. It's called marketing.
No, that's not called marketing. People don't usually know if the products they buy are made by using fossil fuels, wind and solar or nuclear. Most of the time, they have no way of knowing.
Businesses use whatever is cheaper. That is the basic rule of market economics.
You can force people to buy something they don't want: Most of the time, people buy the **** they can afford instead of the quality goods that they may want but can't afford. It's called supply and demand. You can want, but you can't demand something that you can't afford.
This is also the reason why you can't base a business on what people want. You can base a business on what people are dependent on and thus have to buy. Electricity, for instance.
Making people believe that your product is better than it actually is and thus making them buy it is what's called marketing.
It's not due to propaganda or lobbying. It's due to
People not caring and valuing lifestyle over climate concerns
People not liking being told what to do e.g. forcing EVs on people
People not trusting "the elites" e.g. Great Reset
People not seeing climate scientists/activists living like there's a climate emergency.
People concerned about energy security hence drill drill drill
Then there's some weird conspiracy stuff in there which leads to phrases like "you will live in the pod, you will eat the bugs, you will be happy".
Not solely. For the propaganda part, though, much of the role of propaganda and their larger public influence campaigns has been to feed and stroke pretty much all the feelings that you listed and more.
It's not due to propaganda or lobbying. It's due to
People not caring and valuing lifestyle over climate concerns
People not liking being told what to do e.g. forcing EVs on people
People not trusting "the elites" e.g. Great Reset
People not seeing climate scientists/activists living like there's a climate emergency.
People concerned about energy security hence drill drill drill
Then there's some weird conspiracy stuff in there which leads to phrases like "you will live in the pod, you will eat the bugs, you will be happy".
People are idiots all the time; but it takes directing to make them expert idiots on a subject to help big corporations or politicians with their agenda.
That's literally what you're down to arguing. While it is absolutely true that big polluters have bought some scientists as part of their campaigns to delay climate action, such scientists are in a very small minority among the relevant scientists. Hence why there's an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. Given your actual arguments, you're throwing out EVERYTHING, so long as it doesn't feed your bias.
No, that's not what I'm arguing - literally or figuratively. I never claimed that "such scientists" aren't in the minority. The little influence science has has very little to with whatever is consensus. What you don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't matter what the vast majority of climate scientists think. Industry will promote the message of 'climate skeptics' as will the media and the politicians. That's what industry pays them to do.
You should begin again from the beginning. You haven't understood a word I've been saying.
You really need to read The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial if you have any intention of understanding 'public pressure' in the context of global warming.
It's true that some politicians in the pockets of big polluters happily seize upon the work of said bought scientists to justify pushing through the big polluters' wishes, but that's also not all politicians by a long shot. That's sometimes done under the pretense that it's supported by public pressure, too, for that matter, even if that's often about as true as the rest of the time when they try to claim that up is down. You're ever free to look beyond the pretenses and understand why they've put so much effort into fighting to prevent public pressure from getting too intense and to trick people into believing that it doesn't matter, of course.
It doesn't have to be "all politicians by a long shot." They'll learn soon enough what it takes to get campaign donations. And you don't seem to understand what 'public pressure' is. It can be bought and manufactured. And it is. By the fossil-fuel industry and others, thus creating the impression that politicians 'give in' to 'public pressure': 'Alas, I would have loved to do something about climate change, but people obviously don't want me to.'
You didn't watch any of those videos, did you? Too bad! They're all about manufacturing 'public pressure':
I have no idea why you think that this or what preceded it would be in any way acceptable as an argument. Given your choice of arguments, Exxon could be totally bankrupted with fines to be used to fix the damage they've done and that would be no victory at all so long as extraction continues to increase, whatever the reason.
You don't seem to live in the real world. You seem to live in a world where corporations are sued and made to pay if they lie or when they pay troll armies to give the impression of 'public pressure'. Could be sued is very different from actually being sued. And even when sued, companies have a way of making it serve their purposes. Sometimes they even manage to benefit from the reparations they may be forced to pay.
Did you notice that the tobacco industry still exists in spite of the millions of people it managed to kill? And in spite of the reparations it was forced to pay?
Too bad. It was well argued and to the point. I made your contradiction in terms so obvious that it couldn't be overlooked, but it is obvious that it can be ignored.
You mean better than the things that don't work at all?
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
Look for the root of the problem: the fossil-fuel and auto-manufacturing businesses.
What motivates them? Profits! They exist to make money, and they make money by extracting fossil fuels and making cars.
They will continue to do so as long as they can.
They are much better at 'public pressure' than you are, and their campaign donations have much more impact on politics than your vote does.
That business needs to end. As long as companies benefit from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, fossil fuels will continue to be extracted and burned.
It ought to be fairly obvious, but apparently it isn't. Somehow people continue to believe that a business based on the extraction and burning of fossil fuels can continue to exist without CO2 emissions increasing.
I think you are the one who should tell us how 'public pressure' is supposed to make oil companies mend their ways. The article you linked to was one big contradiction of the idea.
You don't like the answers you see, so you dodge any argument against your naïve portrayal of 'public pressure' and all the wonderful things it can allegedly accomplish even though it never does.
Take it any way you want. You are unwilling to follow the logic of your own arguments when they are elaborately presented to you, so I can't help you understand reality.
No, not really. There may be a chuckle or two along the way as comic relief, but Ken Loach's films are usually tragedies. The Navigators and It's a Free World, for instance, are excellent!
It's not due to propaganda or lobbying. It's due to
People not caring and valuing lifestyle over climate concerns
People not liking being told what to do e.g. forcing EVs on people People not trusting "the elites" e.g. Great Reset
People not seeing climate scientists/activists living like there's a climate emergency.People concerned about energy security hence drill drill drill
Then there's some weird conspiracy stuff in there which leads to phrases like "you will live in the pod, you will eat the bugs, you will be happy".
Let me focus on just two of those: The irony is that (some) people trust the elites (the oil industry, Rupert Murdoch) telling them not to trust the elites, and by elites they think of anybody who is considered to be 'woke', i.e. (almost) anybody with a college degree except for the ones with a college degree telling them not to trust the elites.
As for the second one, I think you are confusing yourself with people:
But we need that fracked gas to fuel all those propane fueled patio heaters that eco socialists like to relax on after a hard day spent bitching about fracking.
People are idiots all the time; but it takes directing to make them expert idiots on a subject to help big corporations or politicians with their agenda.
Let me focus on just two of those: The irony is that (some) people trust the elites (the oil industry, Rupert Murdoch) telling them not to trust the elites, and by elites they think of anybody who is considered to be 'woke', i.e. (almost) anybody with a college degree except for the ones with a college degree telling them not to trust the elites.
As for the second one, I think you are confusing yourself with people:
Plenty of college educated people with their faces deep in the fossil fuel trough. Sure, they may bitch about it but that's not stopping them from driving the monster sized RV thousands of miles to Burning Man.
Well, you gotta lean your There is no Planet B sign up against something, right?
No, that's not what I'm arguing - literally or figuratively. I never claimed that "such scientists" aren't in the minority. The little influence science has has very little to with whatever is consensus. What you don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't matter what the vast majority of climate scientists think. Industry will promote the message of 'climate skeptics' as will the media and the politicians. That's what industry pays them to do.
Given that this particular line of discussion is all about you reflexively denying the work of climate action pushing scientists, it sure looks like you're arguing exactly what I said.
This whole tangent into the big polluters' campaign of denial and delay that's included bought and paid for scientists is little other than your reflexive denial, after all, and you trying to make it relevant without ever actually caring about whether you're accurately applying such.
My short assessment? That's argument by YouTube to demonstrate factors that were already being accounted for. I'm not at all impressed by their usage here.
You don't seem to live in the real world. You seem to live in a world where corporations are sued and made to pay if they lie or when they pay troll armies to give the impression of 'public pressure'. Could be sued is very different from actually being sued. And even when sued, companies have a way of making it serve their purposes. Sometimes they even manage to benefit from the reparations they may be forced to pay.
Did you notice that the tobacco industry still exists in spite of the millions of people it managed to kill? And in spite of the reparations it was forced to pay?
Yeah, NOW I'll say that this is an insult to me. Perhaps you've chosen such because you have no defense against WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. None of what you just said addresses what I said.
Here, I'll put it slightly differently. In a war, there are often lots of things that are widely acknowledged to be victories and defeats that lead up to a final victory or defeat in the end. Going by your logic, all those smaller victories throughout are actually defeats any time that the tide of battle is merely against that side, no matter what they might be when evaluated individually and no matter what the final outcome of the war may be and their relevance to such. I find that logic to be inane and unreasonable.
To repeat what I said, "Given your choice of arguments, Exxon could be totally bankrupted with fines to be used to fix the damage they've done and that would be no victory at all so long as extraction continues to increase, whatever the reason." This deals with the logic that you're using with a hypothetical to demonstrate how unreasonable the standard that you're trying to employ is. Your response does not address that at all.
You mean better than the things that don't work at all?
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
Look for the root of the problem: the fossil-fuel and auto-manufacturing businesses.
What motivates them? Profits! They exist to make money, and they make money by extracting fossil fuels and making cars.
They will continue to do so as long as they can.
They are much better at 'public pressure' than you are, and their campaign donations have much more impact on politics than your vote does.
That business needs to end. As long as companies benefit from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, fossil fuels will continue to be extracted and burned.
It ought to be fairly obvious, but apparently it isn't. Somehow people continue to believe that a business based on the extraction and burning of fossil fuels can continue to exist without CO2 emissions increasing.
I think you are the one who should tell us how 'public pressure' is supposed to make oil companies mend their ways. The article you linked to was one big contradiction of the idea.
Okay! That's more of an answer than you had been giving, so I'll skip over the eyeroll-worthy crap! Progress!
Those companies need to be ended!
It's only a partial answer to the questions actually being asked, though. Again,
What specific actions are you proposing to use to make that happen? I'm hardly some fan of the big polluters, after all, so I'm quite amenable to this happening. Still, the means do affect both whether the intended end will be reached and how desirable that end will actually be. A cure that's worse than the sickness is just not what we want, right?
Similarly, what's needed to make those actions actually happen (and preferably prevent them from being undone)? It's nice to throw out goals, but a reasonable plan and preparations are extremely helpful when it comes to actually making more difficult goals happen. Further, if those companies are ended and other forces just step in and do what they were doing, that's a problem that should be easily foreseeable and which should be planned for.
You don't like the answers you see, so you dodge any argument against your naïve portrayal of 'public pressure' and all the wonderful things it can allegedly accomplish even though it never does.
Take it any way you want. You are unwilling to follow the logic of your own arguments when they are elaborately presented to you, so I can't help you understand reality.
Given that you've not demonstrated either that I'm not following my own arguments or that yours are at all reasonable in the first place, I'm not impressed.
I didn't own a car (or have regular use of anyone else's) for the first 20 years of my independent adult life. I walked, biked, and used public transit. This worked out fine for me, but I learned a few things.
If you take public transit, you'll be late to work sometimes. Your supervisors may or may not pretend to be understanding, but they'll be thinking, "if you were serious about your job you'd drive a car." That doesn't matter if you're a lab tech or a retail associate, but back when there were these things called "promotions" it mattered a great deal. It probably still does, somewhere. When you're secure in a corner office maybe you can get back on the bike or the train. Of course by then you've got flexible hours and a car whose heater and AC work, so you'd probably be very tempted not to.
(A less sympathetic supervisor, by the way, will just demand that you "take an earlier train." Never mind that doing so takes an extra unpaid hour out of your day and 95% of the time leaves you waiting over an hour to clock in. It's your problem, not theirs.)
(Yes, cars sometimes break down or get stuck in traffic and make you late for work too. For some reason, supervisors don't roll their eyes nearly as far back into their skulls when that happens.)
But it's almost irrelevant now, because that was back when it was actually possible to afford an apartment in an urban center with public transit and/or within walking or cycling distance, when working entry-level jobs. Currently it's not, in any U.S. city I know of, unless you've got a dozen "roommates" in an illegal boarding house or something like that. Today I couldn't come close to being able to afford to live in any of the neighborhoods I lived in then, on what the jobs I was doing then would pay today.
Note that the jobs we're talking about aren't oil company jobs (tech jobs seem to be the worst in that respect, currently). The owners of the residential properties aren't oil companies. The owners of the neighborhood store fronts that are empty because the tax breaks for owning an empty building exceed what a small store front business could afford to pay in rent aren't oil companies. The owners of the giant retailers that drive those smaller retailers out of business and centralize commerce in big box stores or regional delivery warehouses amid traffic-nightmare asphalt deserts aren't oil companies. Every oil company could post climate warnings at every gas pump and hand out a free bicycle with every fill-up, and hardly anyone's options for working, commuting, shopping, and living would change.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
what a crock. You living in an alternate universe?