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?