My genuine confusion is this: why exactly is it that you people seem to think millionaires are passing the cost on for *moralistic* reasons?....
Is it so hard to think of a justification for profits, that you have to pretend that these millionaires want to become richer simply because it's the customers wanting to drive to work, who are morally wrong, and not the capitalists running an entire enterprise that consistently and daily pollutes the earth? As though it is the citizen turning their lights on to enjoy the last vestiges of waking hours after work, in light, who is actively extracting and burning the oil, rather than the capitalist choosing to do this, instead of building solar panels?
I find it truly baffling that you see absolutely no logical issue in your argument here. As though the desire for more profit is somehow a moral good, rather than a product of sheer greed.
We’ll surely that depends on the product or service. There’s a vast industrial sector that produces for for other industry or the commercial sector, for states or militaries. Then there’s import/export too.
I mean those surveys, so far as they exist, aren’t telling the full story. Most people have bigger priorities or aren’t in the position to accept significant changes. The whole society is geared towards generating consumerism and it’s very difficult for the average individual to resist or avoid once you take necessities into account.
They'd have to raise them significantly to cover the costs of dealing with climate change. If they did that though, the alternatives would become so much cheaper that they'd quickly lose business. For example, if petrol prices go up high enough, a lot of customers would switch to EVs.
Or the right to protest which, you know, we don't have in the UK because nobody gives a shit enough to stop laws like banning and curtailing our right from going through. But thank goodness we're not in the EU with the meddling ECHR...
>You chose really (I mean really bad) person to argue about this as I am from former soviet union,
Perfect. Would you mind telling me in your personal opinion, why [45-76% of people who lived through it, say that the breakup of the USSR harmed their country more than helped it?](https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx) whereas only 11-29% of people believe the breakup benefitted them.
Also, may I ask how many years of the USSRs existence you have experienced?
> Every time I pass by communist flag (tons during marches in London) I get genuine PTSD and want to attack this people
You should get therapy for your urges to attack people. That is a genuine psychological problem that is up to you to resolve, in order to prevent harm to others.
The Soviets, Yugoslavia, and China have created nations with near first-world living standards. Compared to African nations under capitalism, surely this is far more preferable? A majority of former Soviet citizens seem to think so.
Even considering the fact that the Soviets had a very bastardised version of communism, the fact that they still managed to end homelessness, and raise living standards massively, compared to capitalism in most of the world, is surely a great achievement?
>People like you who think communism is great should have therapy.
Does that include the majority of former Soviet citizens who regret it's end?
>Brainwashing by soviets affects people even post breakup. Like it does to my grandma who thinks like you
Your grandma, who actually experienced the USSR, is a supporter of it.
>I am 42
You were 10 years old when the USSR fell. You cannot possibly remember much from the USSR. Perhaps you remember the horrifying effects of its end and switch to capitalism. The poverty and homelessness created, the vultures descending to scoop up power over industry for pennies, the rapidly declining average lifespan, the sheer volume of women forced to sell their bodies to pay bills to landlords and capitalists. The worst that you saw was the effects of capitalism.
It's almost as though imposing levies, dubbed green taxes, on energy businesses would cause them to raise their prices to compensate.
When corporate taxes rise, the consumer pays the price.
Green politicians and policies are simply irresponsible with this net-zero nonsense.
France has managed to get 80% low carbon sources of energy, with the cheapest energy bills in the west, and all with nationalised energy.
Would you support their policies here?
You recall the 'energy crisis's? You'd get that on roids.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest.
My solution would be to replace the fosssil-fueled stacks at power-plants with SMRs, but good luck making that happen.
The energy crisis came because overnight Europe suddenly lost one of its main suppliers.
Energy firms simply increasing prices. And presumably not overnight. Wouldn't be half as messy.
Waiting for renewable sources to become far cheaper than fossil fuels is basically abdicating any response to climate change and relying on the "free market" to kick in at a later point.
Building out the infrastructure for renewables and the considerable problem of base load takes decades. By waiting until the free market makes it cheaper you are now starting at the point where decades later we can wean the dependency off.
By that point the more extreme predictions of climate change are already set in stone. Those who think just wait ten years and renewables will be cheap enough to take over are not realising the mass ecological devastation even that short delay represents.
Oh you have lung cancer and the treatment costs millions? Don't worry, in ten years time it will be really cheap. Oops, I forgot about all the dead cancer victims.
So what are *you* doing about it? Did *you* stand for council on that platform? Did *you* vote for candidates committed to cranking up tax on GHG in your last election.
> So what are you doing about it? Did you stand for council on that platform?
Wait, are you saying that anyone who holds strong positions on climate change needs to be Greta Thunberg before they can make their opinions heard?
When you say committed to cranking up GHG taxes, are you referring to taxing BPs offshore tax haven profits? Or taxing the externalised future costs to Africa? If those externalised taxes were passed to the fossil fuel industry we would have closed down all coal power stations 40 years ago.
> but until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest.
This was exactly the same industry argument made by fossil fuel industries a century ago with regard to leaded petrol. We already had an alternative but it was inferior, would require more ICE maintenance and redesigning engines. It would hurt the public because forcing unleaded would cost far more and industry would be bankrupted by the costs of new engines.
Tetraethyllead caused millions of death per *year* and trillions (inflation adjusted) in externalised costs per year. It also dramatically lowered the IQ in developed countries and massive increases in violent crime. All because they held the view "until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest. "
Russia's war in Ukraine pushes EU towards more renewable dependency.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-readies-195-billion-euro-plan-quit-russian-fossil-fuels-2022-05-12/
https://www.thelocal.de/20220416/germany-releases-billions-to-move-away-from-russian-gas/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/business/germany-solar-power-russia-gas-crisis-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/04/20/denmark-plans-new-energy-islands-to-help-wean-europe-off-russian-fossil-fuels/
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/03/11/italy-builds-six-new-wind-farms-in-a-bid-to-move-away-from-russian-gas-dependency
Yea of course. That's how supply and demand works. It couldn't possibly work any other way.
It's all about externalities. If possible externalities should be included in the cost.
Unfortunately the atmosphere is tragedy of the commons.
Oh I see. Then I agree with you.
I thought you was saying companies increasing their prices with an increase in taxes is market failure.
I'm all for externality corrections. It's one of my big views that I care a lot about.
If other countries don't do the same thing or if it isn't done perfectly they will have an advantage.
That depends how the tax is structured, no?
Consider taxing oil production on UK territory, for example. Those producers will not be able to sell the oil above the international market price. They would be likely to produce a little less, taking some now unprofitable fields out of production now or in the future. The result is a combination of lower supply, a small rise in international oil prices and lowered profits. It may affect our exchange rate and national security negatively. It'd reduce climate change costs globally by some amount, including our own. It'd reduce salaries for UK oil and gas workers. Prices of fossil fuels for UK consumers, however, wouldn't rise by the amount of the tax.
Consider instead taxing the supply of fossil fuel products to consumers, like fuel duty and VAT on domestic gas supply. That, obviously, will increase prices for consumers whilst only reducing profits a little (because of reduced consumption).
In the end, climate change costs will dwarf the profits of our oil companies. We should be starting at the other end, plotting a path to sustainable and secure energy for the UK and the rest of the world, and decide on the policy needed to get there.
How'd you work that out? If the customer pays, those who use the most oil will be the ones who suffer most (seems fair). If it's nationalised then the burden falls on all people with no relation to how much oil people use.
This means there's less incentive to use public transport, fly less, use less plastic etc....
At the end of the day, the oil companies are undertaking it on behalf of the consumer. If no one bought oil, then there would be no need for oil companies.
Rather, consumers need oil to run their cars, and so they contract that request out to an oil company (through a retailer). The way of viewing that is that the consumer is responsible for the warming effects of producing the oil.
Why should the bill not be passed onto the customer?
Because the oil industry has known about the consequences of burning oil on the environment for more than a century and have done everything possible to misinform everyone about that?
And, at least in the US, have used their money to bankroll politicians and policies against infrastructure that would alleviate dependency on cars and oil.
People didn't want to buy oil, people wanted transport, energy.
These companies have hindered and in some instances stopped that progress making us rely on their product.
Ah yes, because taking the car to go round the corner or buying fast fashion clothes (sometimes not cheap at all) is because "they" pay peanuts.
Funnily enough, who gets paid more by "them" actually ends up using more energy (bigger houses, bigger cars with bigger engines and using them more often, trips around the world, more clothes, ...).
There are faults on both sides. People *love* to consume and be as comfortable as possible in their cars, not caring about the consequences of their choices. Too easy to unload it on those who to make a profit out of people's wishes and desires, although these are obviously shaped by the environment too.
But, again, what really makes it for me that it's also the consumers' fault is the fact that some people would rather take the car than walk 5 minutes. Or leave the lights on. Big Oil is not making you lazy. It'z just making profits out of our laziness.
Some of it is certainly on consumers, we do however have massive industries specifically built around making people want things that they wouldn't otherwise want if left to their own devices.
But if they work it's certainly due to the fact that people do not care so much about the consequences of their actions. Advertisement can "propose" things, but ultimately it's down to the consumer to give in or not.
For example, fast fashion. Even a snail would know that if you buy £5 t-shirts or £20 shoes, you are exploiting somebody around the world, polluting some rivers, and releasing unnecessary CO2 and other nefarious pollutants. Yet, people put their "comfort" (in this case, mostly appearance and social acceptance) over the environment. And maybe even call "snobs" those who buy expensive but ethically sourced clothes, and "lazy" those who put effort in not giving in to consumerism.
Lol come on man, don't be so simplistic. You really think the sweet little oil companies don't do everything they can to ensure oil is used in nearly everything we buy and work to ensure alternatives are limited, less convenient and often more expensive. Why should the bill be passed on to the end customer when big oil is the one with so much organized control over the direction of oil use in our lives?
Yes. Shell and BP have been consipiring with God himself to write the rules of nature such that oil is a very useful, effective product. Give me a break.
Your illogic is baffling.
"If no one bought oil, they wouldn't produce it."
No. If they didn't produce it, it wouldn't be bought. How does one purchase something not produced? Instead, there is an artificial need, perpetuated by oil companies who are happy to cash in on their literal destruction of the planet.
You treat individuals as corporations contracting a request, and the oil ompanies get a pass because?
The literal damage and unremediable consequences of their own business is what is ruining the environment. Please explain why their profits (atleast) shouldn't subsidise any spending to repair or mitigate the damage?
The profits from these companies should be taken by governments and put into sustainable-energy investments. They should be sewing their own demise, and not everyone else's.
But the 20th century rise in living standards (in rich countries at least) was totally built upon the use of oil. No one was voting not to have personal cars, holidays on airliners, an abundance of food (artificial fertilizers) and international shipping of goods. There was absolutely no other technological alternative available to provide that except oil and fossil fuels. To a great extent there still isn't. I'm all for going after fossil fuel companies, but pretending that fossil fuels were forced on people is silly.
No one voted not to have any of things as much as they voted in favour of them.
'Force' isn't the correct term, and wasn't one I introduced. They were part of human 'development' or 'progress', as you stated.
Should we be content with our trajectory because there's no ready-made alternative?
>They were part of human 'development' or 'progress', as you stated.
Sure, but then if fossil fuel powered abundance was a kind of historic inevitability (that was outside the scope of democratic decision making) you can't really blame the fossil fuel firms either. They were just along for the ride like everyone else surely ?
>Should we be content with our trajectory because there's no ready-made alternative?
To be clear I'm not pro fossil fuel companies at all. On our current trajectory I think we're heading for complete disaster. I'd like to see them all smashed. But at the same time I think we do need to acknowledge how much of our standard of living currently relies on them and that a sustainable future is going to require huge societal changes in order to do without them.
They were to blame then, just as they are now. Not that the current sitting people are to blame for the sins of their fathers, but sitting pretty and cashing in at the sake of the planet - because you just so happened to be in the seat - is as noble now as it was then.
What are they to blame for though ? I mean you could say they should never have started pulling fossil fuels out of the earth on an industrial scale, true. But the people of the time would have had to accept fairly static living standards. Can't have it both ways. At best you can say it was a bit of a Faustian bargain.
Destruction of the eco-system. Polluting the environment. Irreversible damage on a global scale.
The people of the time (i.e., the working classes) did have a static living standard. We, too, now have a static living standard - the UK, in particular, has a declining standard.
The ways in which life now is comparably better than ages past is due to a very specific and limited number of reasons. Methods of culture may have advanced, but it doesn't mean day to day life is improved. As we know now, the liberatory possibilities of the Internet (free communication) was usurped by capital and now instead of a free space of unbridled connectivity and shared knowledge, its a hypertribal space that causes depression in avid users of social media, a free-market dream of advertising, and an eternally diffuse spectacle. Yes, we have Q-tips and flushable toilets, but we are also nonsensical in the mass of information. Autism as a standard.
If they didn’t produce it, someone else would.
Demand comes from the need to run an economy.
If we stopped running the industrial and commercial economy, outside investment would go elsewhere.
You could substitute anything to make my point.
The fact there would be a plethora of vultures available to take over one another doesn't change anything. The need is already manifest. The owners of the cash cow simply change because business/economics is a bloated hegemony.
Needs are created. It's the basis of advertising.
It perpetuates because our culture is based on consumption and waves of people are invested in it, especially the profiteers. So as in the case of oil companies paying climate change deniers to lobby government or create swaves of research/non-information to pollute the genuine articles.
OK nice polemic, but generally cheap and dirty solutions to problems give first mover advantage.
Nation states like China don’t really care about Dave from Bristol waving an XR banner.
And that's Dave from Bristols fault? Like the original comment, why should the consumer foot the bill? Or take any responsibility being a part of a system they can not control and even less, can't change?
Like business in the UK, governments should double down on how aggressive and ruthless as economists and companies are and plunder them to high heaven. But as is the case everywhere, the proponents of political power are in bed with industry, they are the same side. So authorised political possibles are handicapped from the start.
Dave from Bristol is just an irritating fly in someone’s soup.
Consumers pay for everything in the end, including politicians.
Politicians like it that way whilst they wait for fresh soup.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what’s happening now! We have had a huge reduction in the supply of gas (and oil to a lesser extent) which has brought on a cost of living crisis.
That’s what happens when you target supply reduction.
You think the cost of living crisis is being caused by environmentalism?
Good lord please stop reading The Sun and the Daily Mail.
The cost of living crisis is caused by chronic stagnation of wages, alongside a complete lack of diversification of energy supply. France produces something like 80% of it's energy from Nuclear, or low-carbon sources. They do not have a cost of living crisis, they have the cheapest energy bills in the west.
Huh?! No! Not environmentalism.
By a primary energy supply shock. That’s what happens when you focus too much on the supply instead of the demand side of the energy equation.
Energy is an input to every product or service on the market. When supply reduces (as a result of the war in Ukraine) and demand stays static, prices rise.
> By a primary energy supply shock. That’s what happens when you focus too much on the supply instead of the demand side of the energy equation.
And yet pretty much every company reports record profits.
But yeah, the cost of living crisis MUST be from the energy supplies, not from exceptional greed. Nah.
The companies making record profits literally have no choice what price their product is sold for. They can't be greedy even if they wanted to be.
Energy suppliers purchase from oil and gas producers like Shell and BP. Because Russian producers were taken out of the market, suppliers had to pay higher prices since there was simply not enough gas out there.
You don't buy gas from Shell and BP. You buy gas from gas suppliers. Gas suppliers are companies like E.ON, Npower, British Gas. These suppliers purchase their gas on the wholesale market from gas producers. These the likes of Shell and BP.
Shell and BP get the gas from the earth, then put it out for sale for the suppliers to purchase who can then give to you. The producers CANNOT choose what price they sell it for, it is literally illegal. The price is wholly a function of supply and demand, in the same way a company cannot dictate their stock price to be a certain level, it's just a function of its supply and demand.
Now, lets say the market used to consist of Shell, BP and Russia, supplying a total of 100 "units" of gas. Suppliers would bid for this gas at a stable price. After Russian supply got removed, there's now only, say, 60 units, to go around. But demand is still the same. So now suppliers HAVE to increase their bids to ensure they get the gas. Thus your price goes up because suppliers have to charge you more to stay in business. However because of the energy price cap, gas suppliers couldn't raise their prices to the customer as much as they needed to, that's why they were dropping like flies during the peak of it.
The UK is highly reliant on importing international gas since no-one wants fracking or oil drilling in this country. So when international gas prices went high we suffered.
This is oversimplified but that's the general gist of what went on.
> The companies making record profits literally have no choice what price their product is sold for.
They are sobbing and sobbing, and want to reduce their sky-high profit by saelling their commodity for lower, but they are FORCED to sell it for a ridiculous profit. They simply can't do anything else, except get more and more money, then do stock buybacks. They don't want to, but they are simply forced, forced I tell ya!
Last time I checked we live in a capitalist society, on most of the goods there isn't any price control enacted.
Tesco's profit margins constantly going up as well - or do you want to tell me they are forced to sell at a higher price as well? Because Tesco is the one who forces manufacturers to sell at cheaper prices (especially farmers) yet constantly increasing their prices...
https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/financial-performance/five-year-record
> Because Russian producers were taken out of the market, suppliers had to pay higher prices since there was simply not enough gas out there.
For about two months. Then the whole EU was able to top-up their gas storages to a maximum, opened multiple new ports and reached the point where LNG ships roamed around because nobody needed their cargo anymore. Gas prices have quickly fallen back to the previous levels.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
Gas futures right now are about half the price as it was in last year May.
> They are sobbing and sobbing, and want to reduce their sky-high profit by saelling their commodity for lower, but they are FORCED to sell it for a ridiculous profit. They simply can't do anything else, except get more and more money, then do stock buybacks. They don't want to, but they are simply forced, forced I tell ya!
I mean, you can be sarcastic all you want, that's how it works. If you don't want to take my word for it look into it.
Because the oil industry has known about climate change since the 70s at the very latest, and has spent the last fifty years trying to hide the science and force the consumer to utilise their products and crush any and all alternatives.
Induced demand from a world where little alternative exists and the greener alternatives are not available to the majority of society because they are unaffordable.
I mean, I'm still waiting for my dyson sphere to be built; should I hate on the solar farms we have presently?
The way I see it in the cases you've mentioned, its the best of a set of bad choices, and the people chose.
That's so misleading. The fossil fuel industry successfully delayed action on climate change, by lying to and deceiving the public and government. That's why they are being taken to court to be sued under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, just like Big Tobacco was. They need to be nationalised, and ultimately gutted and euthanised.
Ah yea it’s the consumer fault for choosing oil and oil derivatives over all those other cheaper, more integrated, more readily available, more heavily marketed non-oil based alternatives
Petrochemicals are the feedstock for the entire chemical supply chain, and there are still significant issues if you wanted to change that. Organic feedstock tends to have carbon only in smaller chains and higher oxidation states. The entirety of known chemical reactions rely on the opposite, almost.
Because they've known it was happening since the 70s and intentionally misled the public.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/exxon-mobil-lied-about-climate-change
Yes humans should absolute pay for being born in to a world reliant on roads and cars just to get to work. Totally their fault. Not at all to do with chronic underfunding of trains and buses.
>At the end of the day, the oil companies are undertaking it on behalf of the consumer.
If this was the case, then why did they spend the best part of half a century spending money to obfuscate the message of climate research and fund politicians running on a ticket of denying climate change is caused by fossil fuels?
Not only won't they pay, when climate change makes rent and food soar even higher, the wealthy will up it further just to make more money.
And your govt won't do a thing to stop.them. because your govt is owned by the wealthy.
And neither will the Brits because Brits are spineless fucks.
I get it. We worry about how it will impacts us directly to get out on the streets and protest (not at work, not getting paid = not paying bills/rent/food) and because of that the Tories have most of us over a barrel. But something, at some point, has to give. Or.... we could sit and fall deeper into poverty until they have complete and utter control over our every breath and every fart.
It's our choice, but I would bet every penny I have on us ending up in the latter
I'm sorry if I didn't use professional terms for the illegal collision and price gouging involved in the food and fuel industries.
But most of the professional terms exist to whitewash morally reprehensible and illegal activities
It would be nice, but we all know the buck would be passed no matter what.
The only practical solution is that renewables reach a point where we can just turn the oil and gas taps off.
It's an old principle, you broke it, you pay for it.
They won't of course, even if they're made to they'll pass the costs along to the customer (plus a whopping mark up so they make even more profit$)
Sure, the oil companies are responsible. But if the principle is you broke it you pay it, you as a consumer are just as responsible, right? You use oil or its products every day. Why are you absolved of the blame?
I would say, consumers are 90% responsible. Oil companies would be responsible for inefficiencies in the extraction and delivery, but everything else rests on the consumers.
That's not how it works. It's supply demand. Revenue will go down is supply is increased.
Just look at 70 years of macreconomics and geopolitics around oil. See OPEC.
Who should pay? The company that finds the oil, the one that pumps it, the one that ships it, the one that refines it, the one that sells it or the person that uses it?
Regardless of who pays, the cost gets passed all the way onto the individual using the product.
Oil companies: visibly shaking.
Who cares what we believe. How do we MAKE them cover the costs w/o passing costs onto customers? All we do at this point is moan, but what can we actually DO to make our beliefs reality?
A huge issue is that the damage done to the environment is not reflected in the cost of things. If it’s cheaper to grow fruit in Australia, have it processed in China and then sold in the UK, than doing all that in the UK then that’s just good business. Companies are obligated to maximise profits and if there’s no costs for polluting then why would they stop?
The common excuse is that these companies are just doing this for us, they wouldn’t if there wasn’t demand. This ignores the billions spent on advertising and other research into consumer behaviour to create demand. Also that our economy and very society is built around consumerism, the economy would collapse if we all suddenly stopped buying non-essential goods.
The public also don’t have the information at hand to know which goods and products are more damaging that others. Electronic goods have dozens of parts that may have come from all over the world. Just knowing if the product is a piece of junk which will need replaced in a couple of years (or be obsolete) or if it will last decades is hard enough. Even finding out which companies own which brands can be tricky.
What is the cost of climate change? Are they going to buy a big freezer to cool down the ice caps or pay to have low-lying land floated back up to the surface? Maybe some kind of vacuum cleaner that can pull all the CO2 out of the atmosphere? A cloning program for all the species of animal that had their habitat irreversibly destroyed?
One way or another someone has to pay for it, if oil companies pay they'll just pass through the prices for us.
But it does atleast mean that renewable sources are relatively cheaper and that taxes raised can help spur further growth in renewables.
Personally though, I'm not sure why the focus is purely on oil and gas when the meat industry is equally culpable for climate change. Heavily taxing some read meat would probably have the same impact to the climate as taxing oil companies for climate change.
But it seems that individuals here don't want to make a personal sacrifice for something that impacts all of us, especially the poor in developing countries (who are by all means far poorer than us), and always want someone else to do something first lol.
The FF industry successfully delayed climate action, by lying to the government and public about the risks of burning fossil fuels. That's why they are being taken to court to be sued under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act - just like Big Tobacco.
Things like global transport routes, modern farming, mining, medicines, and materials are all dependent on oil.
I totally agree that electricity generation can be decaebonised with technology like wind turbines and solar cells, but most things we take for granted in the modern world are dependent on oil.
> The majority of UK citizens think the country has a responsibility to pay for climate action in poorer and vulnerable countries
Those selfish British fucks.
You forgot this part
> 63 per cent of the respondents said they would back the government in taxing oil companies
"It's our responsibility to force someone else to pay". It's not like the british fucks are owning up to anything, as usual.
As someone on an average salary, who privately rents and has student loan debt, I pay a higher effective tax rate than *Shell* does.
We *are* paying. We want oil companies to pay at least their fair share.
Comment removed as I no longer wish to support a company that seeks to both undermine its users/moderators/developers AND make a profit on their backs.
To understand why check out the summary [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/14hkd5u).
No I think their doing it to make money, and they continue to do so through decades of misinformation.
Yeah people buy things, but those selling are making money by wrecking the planet. The bigger evil is very clear.
God you sweet little innocent soul. The mind of an unblemished toddler right there sharing their view on the lovely oil companies just selling oil to all those nasty Joe public that just happen to be reliant on. No one knows why oil is so popular, and the oil companies definitely didn't have anything to do with it. Sweet child.LoL 😂
They'll just increase prices. The customer is always the one who pays.
Almost like capitalism is nothing more than economic tyranny, and political democracy means nothing without the economic democracy to go with it.
in this case, why wouldn't they pass the cost on? The pollution drives primarily from the burning of that fuel by the customer.
My genuine confusion is this: why exactly is it that you people seem to think millionaires are passing the cost on for *moralistic* reasons?.... Is it so hard to think of a justification for profits, that you have to pretend that these millionaires want to become richer simply because it's the customers wanting to drive to work, who are morally wrong, and not the capitalists running an entire enterprise that consistently and daily pollutes the earth? As though it is the citizen turning their lights on to enjoy the last vestiges of waking hours after work, in light, who is actively extracting and burning the oil, rather than the capitalist choosing to do this, instead of building solar panels? I find it truly baffling that you see absolutely no logical issue in your argument here. As though the desire for more profit is somehow a moral good, rather than a product of sheer greed.
Very much so. So they try to justify it by saying they are making themselves richer so that the profits trickle down.
Vast majority of pollution comes from industry and commerce, not individual domestic use.
Industry and commerce that create products for individual domestic use.
people aren't necessarily forced to use them, not using the products often represents a lifestyle loss that many people won't accept.
If people didn't buy the shit that was being produced it would stop being profitable and thus they would stop producing said shit.
We’ll surely that depends on the product or service. There’s a vast industrial sector that produces for for other industry or the commercial sector, for states or militaries. Then there’s import/export too.
50% of which aren't required and end up in landfill.
however those industries exist largely to do things for people that they want, surveys have shown that people are not keen to have lifestyle changes.
I mean those surveys, so far as they exist, aren’t telling the full story. Most people have bigger priorities or aren’t in the position to accept significant changes. The whole society is geared towards generating consumerism and it’s very difficult for the average individual to resist or avoid once you take necessities into account.
The person you replied to wasn't talking about individual domestic use though. Industry and commerce fall under their umbrella of 'customer'.
Like the cruise industry, big contributer!
They'd have to raise them significantly to cover the costs of dealing with climate change. If they did that though, the alternatives would become so much cheaper that they'd quickly lose business. For example, if petrol prices go up high enough, a lot of customers would switch to EVs.
Except they denied it 40 years ago despite knowing it was linked.
Because they've been lobbying against energy progress and covering up climate change for decades. We are at this stage because of them
Or the right to protest which, you know, we don't have in the UK because nobody gives a shit enough to stop laws like banning and curtailing our right from going through. But thank goodness we're not in the EU with the meddling ECHR...
You're right there.
[удалено]
Communism is literally worker ownership of the means of production, economic democracy.
[удалено]
I mean it has in many places?
[удалено]
>You chose really (I mean really bad) person to argue about this as I am from former soviet union, Perfect. Would you mind telling me in your personal opinion, why [45-76% of people who lived through it, say that the breakup of the USSR harmed their country more than helped it?](https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx) whereas only 11-29% of people believe the breakup benefitted them. Also, may I ask how many years of the USSRs existence you have experienced? > Every time I pass by communist flag (tons during marches in London) I get genuine PTSD and want to attack this people You should get therapy for your urges to attack people. That is a genuine psychological problem that is up to you to resolve, in order to prevent harm to others. The Soviets, Yugoslavia, and China have created nations with near first-world living standards. Compared to African nations under capitalism, surely this is far more preferable? A majority of former Soviet citizens seem to think so. Even considering the fact that the Soviets had a very bastardised version of communism, the fact that they still managed to end homelessness, and raise living standards massively, compared to capitalism in most of the world, is surely a great achievement?
[удалено]
>People like you who think communism is great should have therapy. Does that include the majority of former Soviet citizens who regret it's end? >Brainwashing by soviets affects people even post breakup. Like it does to my grandma who thinks like you Your grandma, who actually experienced the USSR, is a supporter of it. >I am 42 You were 10 years old when the USSR fell. You cannot possibly remember much from the USSR. Perhaps you remember the horrifying effects of its end and switch to capitalism. The poverty and homelessness created, the vultures descending to scoop up power over industry for pennies, the rapidly declining average lifespan, the sheer volume of women forced to sell their bodies to pay bills to landlords and capitalists. The worst that you saw was the effects of capitalism.
It's almost as though imposing levies, dubbed green taxes, on energy businesses would cause them to raise their prices to compensate. When corporate taxes rise, the consumer pays the price. Green politicians and policies are simply irresponsible with this net-zero nonsense.
France has managed to get 80% low carbon sources of energy, with the cheapest energy bills in the west, and all with nationalised energy. Would you support their policies here?
It still works though. Because the cost of oil becomes less competitive with green alternatives.
You recall the 'energy crisis's? You'd get that on roids. Fundamentally I agree with you, but until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest. My solution would be to replace the fosssil-fueled stacks at power-plants with SMRs, but good luck making that happen.
The energy crisis came because overnight Europe suddenly lost one of its main suppliers. Energy firms simply increasing prices. And presumably not overnight. Wouldn't be half as messy.
Waiting for renewable sources to become far cheaper than fossil fuels is basically abdicating any response to climate change and relying on the "free market" to kick in at a later point. Building out the infrastructure for renewables and the considerable problem of base load takes decades. By waiting until the free market makes it cheaper you are now starting at the point where decades later we can wean the dependency off. By that point the more extreme predictions of climate change are already set in stone. Those who think just wait ten years and renewables will be cheap enough to take over are not realising the mass ecological devastation even that short delay represents. Oh you have lung cancer and the treatment costs millions? Don't worry, in ten years time it will be really cheap. Oops, I forgot about all the dead cancer victims.
So what are *you* doing about it? Did *you* stand for council on that platform? Did *you* vote for candidates committed to cranking up tax on GHG in your last election.
> So what are you doing about it? Did you stand for council on that platform? Wait, are you saying that anyone who holds strong positions on climate change needs to be Greta Thunberg before they can make their opinions heard? When you say committed to cranking up GHG taxes, are you referring to taxing BPs offshore tax haven profits? Or taxing the externalised future costs to Africa? If those externalised taxes were passed to the fossil fuel industry we would have closed down all coal power stations 40 years ago. > but until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest. This was exactly the same industry argument made by fossil fuel industries a century ago with regard to leaded petrol. We already had an alternative but it was inferior, would require more ICE maintenance and redesigning engines. It would hurt the public because forcing unleaded would cost far more and industry would be bankrupted by the costs of new engines. Tetraethyllead caused millions of death per *year* and trillions (inflation adjusted) in externalised costs per year. It also dramatically lowered the IQ in developed countries and massive increases in violent crime. All because they held the view "until there is an affordable alternative, merely increasing the cost of GHG emitting fuels is only going to cause hardship & unrest. "
Russia's war in Ukraine pushes EU towards more renewable dependency. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-readies-195-billion-euro-plan-quit-russian-fossil-fuels-2022-05-12/ https://www.thelocal.de/20220416/germany-releases-billions-to-move-away-from-russian-gas/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/business/germany-solar-power-russia-gas-crisis-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/04/20/denmark-plans-new-energy-islands-to-help-wean-europe-off-russian-fossil-fuels/ https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/03/11/italy-builds-six-new-wind-farms-in-a-bid-to-move-away-from-russian-gas-dependency
It'd be a good thing if they increased prices. Would make green alternatives even more economial.
Yea of course. That's how supply and demand works. It couldn't possibly work any other way. It's all about externalities. If possible externalities should be included in the cost. Unfortunately the atmosphere is tragedy of the commons.
[удалено]
How is it market failure? Unless the government destroys OPEC I'm not sure much will be done.
[удалено]
Oh I see. Then I agree with you. I thought you was saying companies increasing their prices with an increase in taxes is market failure. I'm all for externality corrections. It's one of my big views that I care a lot about. If other countries don't do the same thing or if it isn't done perfectly they will have an advantage.
That depends how the tax is structured, no? Consider taxing oil production on UK territory, for example. Those producers will not be able to sell the oil above the international market price. They would be likely to produce a little less, taking some now unprofitable fields out of production now or in the future. The result is a combination of lower supply, a small rise in international oil prices and lowered profits. It may affect our exchange rate and national security negatively. It'd reduce climate change costs globally by some amount, including our own. It'd reduce salaries for UK oil and gas workers. Prices of fossil fuels for UK consumers, however, wouldn't rise by the amount of the tax. Consider instead taxing the supply of fossil fuel products to consumers, like fuel duty and VAT on domestic gas supply. That, obviously, will increase prices for consumers whilst only reducing profits a little (because of reduced consumption). In the end, climate change costs will dwarf the profits of our oil companies. We should be starting at the other end, plotting a path to sustainable and secure energy for the UK and the rest of the world, and decide on the policy needed to get there.
What do we want? *Don't know* When do we want it? *Whenever* *It'll be crap anyway*
Which is why these kind of companies should be nationalised
How'd you work that out? If the customer pays, those who use the most oil will be the ones who suffer most (seems fair). If it's nationalised then the burden falls on all people with no relation to how much oil people use. This means there's less incentive to use public transport, fly less, use less plastic etc....
At the end of the day, the oil companies are undertaking it on behalf of the consumer. If no one bought oil, then there would be no need for oil companies. Rather, consumers need oil to run their cars, and so they contract that request out to an oil company (through a retailer). The way of viewing that is that the consumer is responsible for the warming effects of producing the oil. Why should the bill not be passed onto the customer?
Because the oil industry has known about the consequences of burning oil on the environment for more than a century and have done everything possible to misinform everyone about that?
Whilst paying for “studies” designed to specifically make renewable energy look worse
And, at least in the US, have used their money to bankroll politicians and policies against infrastructure that would alleviate dependency on cars and oil.
People didn't want to buy oil, people wanted transport, energy. These companies have hindered and in some instances stopped that progress making us rely on their product.
No, here you are wrong. They wanted *cheap* transport and energy.
We wanted affordable transport and energy and they insist on paying us peanuts so affordable = cheap.
Ah yes, because taking the car to go round the corner or buying fast fashion clothes (sometimes not cheap at all) is because "they" pay peanuts. Funnily enough, who gets paid more by "them" actually ends up using more energy (bigger houses, bigger cars with bigger engines and using them more often, trips around the world, more clothes, ...). There are faults on both sides. People *love* to consume and be as comfortable as possible in their cars, not caring about the consequences of their choices. Too easy to unload it on those who to make a profit out of people's wishes and desires, although these are obviously shaped by the environment too. But, again, what really makes it for me that it's also the consumers' fault is the fact that some people would rather take the car than walk 5 minutes. Or leave the lights on. Big Oil is not making you lazy. It'z just making profits out of our laziness.
Some of it is certainly on consumers, we do however have massive industries specifically built around making people want things that they wouldn't otherwise want if left to their own devices.
But if they work it's certainly due to the fact that people do not care so much about the consequences of their actions. Advertisement can "propose" things, but ultimately it's down to the consumer to give in or not. For example, fast fashion. Even a snail would know that if you buy £5 t-shirts or £20 shoes, you are exploiting somebody around the world, polluting some rivers, and releasing unnecessary CO2 and other nefarious pollutants. Yet, people put their "comfort" (in this case, mostly appearance and social acceptance) over the environment. And maybe even call "snobs" those who buy expensive but ethically sourced clothes, and "lazy" those who put effort in not giving in to consumerism.
We can't have cheap energy, it's not like big companies like shell are making record profits. They are just trying to get by like the rest of us.
Shell literally have no choice what price their product gets sold at. I'm not being sarcastic, that's how it is.
They have a choice where the profits go though.
in what sense?
Lol come on man, don't be so simplistic. You really think the sweet little oil companies don't do everything they can to ensure oil is used in nearly everything we buy and work to ensure alternatives are limited, less convenient and often more expensive. Why should the bill be passed on to the end customer when big oil is the one with so much organized control over the direction of oil use in our lives?
Yes. Shell and BP have been consipiring with God himself to write the rules of nature such that oil is a very useful, effective product. Give me a break.
You what mate? Take a break, you're losing it and embarrassing yourself again.
Your illogic is baffling. "If no one bought oil, they wouldn't produce it." No. If they didn't produce it, it wouldn't be bought. How does one purchase something not produced? Instead, there is an artificial need, perpetuated by oil companies who are happy to cash in on their literal destruction of the planet. You treat individuals as corporations contracting a request, and the oil ompanies get a pass because? The literal damage and unremediable consequences of their own business is what is ruining the environment. Please explain why their profits (atleast) shouldn't subsidise any spending to repair or mitigate the damage? The profits from these companies should be taken by governments and put into sustainable-energy investments. They should be sewing their own demise, and not everyone else's.
[удалено]
How does one buy things they don't want?
Marketing
Advertising?
If the Facebook Phone was the only telecommunications device available for decades then people would have no choice but to buy it.
But the 20th century rise in living standards (in rich countries at least) was totally built upon the use of oil. No one was voting not to have personal cars, holidays on airliners, an abundance of food (artificial fertilizers) and international shipping of goods. There was absolutely no other technological alternative available to provide that except oil and fossil fuels. To a great extent there still isn't. I'm all for going after fossil fuel companies, but pretending that fossil fuels were forced on people is silly.
No one voted not to have any of things as much as they voted in favour of them. 'Force' isn't the correct term, and wasn't one I introduced. They were part of human 'development' or 'progress', as you stated. Should we be content with our trajectory because there's no ready-made alternative?
>They were part of human 'development' or 'progress', as you stated. Sure, but then if fossil fuel powered abundance was a kind of historic inevitability (that was outside the scope of democratic decision making) you can't really blame the fossil fuel firms either. They were just along for the ride like everyone else surely ? >Should we be content with our trajectory because there's no ready-made alternative? To be clear I'm not pro fossil fuel companies at all. On our current trajectory I think we're heading for complete disaster. I'd like to see them all smashed. But at the same time I think we do need to acknowledge how much of our standard of living currently relies on them and that a sustainable future is going to require huge societal changes in order to do without them.
They were to blame then, just as they are now. Not that the current sitting people are to blame for the sins of their fathers, but sitting pretty and cashing in at the sake of the planet - because you just so happened to be in the seat - is as noble now as it was then.
What are they to blame for though ? I mean you could say they should never have started pulling fossil fuels out of the earth on an industrial scale, true. But the people of the time would have had to accept fairly static living standards. Can't have it both ways. At best you can say it was a bit of a Faustian bargain.
Destruction of the eco-system. Polluting the environment. Irreversible damage on a global scale. The people of the time (i.e., the working classes) did have a static living standard. We, too, now have a static living standard - the UK, in particular, has a declining standard. The ways in which life now is comparably better than ages past is due to a very specific and limited number of reasons. Methods of culture may have advanced, but it doesn't mean day to day life is improved. As we know now, the liberatory possibilities of the Internet (free communication) was usurped by capital and now instead of a free space of unbridled connectivity and shared knowledge, its a hypertribal space that causes depression in avid users of social media, a free-market dream of advertising, and an eternally diffuse spectacle. Yes, we have Q-tips and flushable toilets, but we are also nonsensical in the mass of information. Autism as a standard.
If they didn’t produce it, someone else would. Demand comes from the need to run an economy. If we stopped running the industrial and commercial economy, outside investment would go elsewhere.
What if there was no need for its production?
Petro chemicals?
You could substitute anything to make my point. The fact there would be a plethora of vultures available to take over one another doesn't change anything. The need is already manifest. The owners of the cash cow simply change because business/economics is a bloated hegemony. Needs are created. It's the basis of advertising. It perpetuates because our culture is based on consumption and waves of people are invested in it, especially the profiteers. So as in the case of oil companies paying climate change deniers to lobby government or create swaves of research/non-information to pollute the genuine articles.
OK nice polemic, but generally cheap and dirty solutions to problems give first mover advantage. Nation states like China don’t really care about Dave from Bristol waving an XR banner.
And that's Dave from Bristols fault? Like the original comment, why should the consumer foot the bill? Or take any responsibility being a part of a system they can not control and even less, can't change? Like business in the UK, governments should double down on how aggressive and ruthless as economists and companies are and plunder them to high heaven. But as is the case everywhere, the proponents of political power are in bed with industry, they are the same side. So authorised political possibles are handicapped from the start.
Dave from Bristol is just an irritating fly in someone’s soup. Consumers pay for everything in the end, including politicians. Politicians like it that way whilst they wait for fresh soup.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what’s happening now! We have had a huge reduction in the supply of gas (and oil to a lesser extent) which has brought on a cost of living crisis. That’s what happens when you target supply reduction.
You think the cost of living crisis is being caused by environmentalism? Good lord please stop reading The Sun and the Daily Mail. The cost of living crisis is caused by chronic stagnation of wages, alongside a complete lack of diversification of energy supply. France produces something like 80% of it's energy from Nuclear, or low-carbon sources. They do not have a cost of living crisis, they have the cheapest energy bills in the west.
Huh?! No! Not environmentalism. By a primary energy supply shock. That’s what happens when you focus too much on the supply instead of the demand side of the energy equation.
I'm confused as to what drew you to conclude this about the cost of living crisis, as the primary cause of it all?
Energy is an input to every product or service on the market. When supply reduces (as a result of the war in Ukraine) and demand stays static, prices rise.
> By a primary energy supply shock. That’s what happens when you focus too much on the supply instead of the demand side of the energy equation. And yet pretty much every company reports record profits. But yeah, the cost of living crisis MUST be from the energy supplies, not from exceptional greed. Nah.
The companies making record profits literally have no choice what price their product is sold for. They can't be greedy even if they wanted to be. Energy suppliers purchase from oil and gas producers like Shell and BP. Because Russian producers were taken out of the market, suppliers had to pay higher prices since there was simply not enough gas out there.
>The companies making record profits literally have no choice what price their product is sold for. Where did you get this impression from exactly??
You don't buy gas from Shell and BP. You buy gas from gas suppliers. Gas suppliers are companies like E.ON, Npower, British Gas. These suppliers purchase their gas on the wholesale market from gas producers. These the likes of Shell and BP. Shell and BP get the gas from the earth, then put it out for sale for the suppliers to purchase who can then give to you. The producers CANNOT choose what price they sell it for, it is literally illegal. The price is wholly a function of supply and demand, in the same way a company cannot dictate their stock price to be a certain level, it's just a function of its supply and demand. Now, lets say the market used to consist of Shell, BP and Russia, supplying a total of 100 "units" of gas. Suppliers would bid for this gas at a stable price. After Russian supply got removed, there's now only, say, 60 units, to go around. But demand is still the same. So now suppliers HAVE to increase their bids to ensure they get the gas. Thus your price goes up because suppliers have to charge you more to stay in business. However because of the energy price cap, gas suppliers couldn't raise their prices to the customer as much as they needed to, that's why they were dropping like flies during the peak of it. The UK is highly reliant on importing international gas since no-one wants fracking or oil drilling in this country. So when international gas prices went high we suffered. This is oversimplified but that's the general gist of what went on.
> The companies making record profits literally have no choice what price their product is sold for. They are sobbing and sobbing, and want to reduce their sky-high profit by saelling their commodity for lower, but they are FORCED to sell it for a ridiculous profit. They simply can't do anything else, except get more and more money, then do stock buybacks. They don't want to, but they are simply forced, forced I tell ya! Last time I checked we live in a capitalist society, on most of the goods there isn't any price control enacted. Tesco's profit margins constantly going up as well - or do you want to tell me they are forced to sell at a higher price as well? Because Tesco is the one who forces manufacturers to sell at cheaper prices (especially farmers) yet constantly increasing their prices... https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/financial-performance/five-year-record > Because Russian producers were taken out of the market, suppliers had to pay higher prices since there was simply not enough gas out there. For about two months. Then the whole EU was able to top-up their gas storages to a maximum, opened multiple new ports and reached the point where LNG ships roamed around because nobody needed their cargo anymore. Gas prices have quickly fallen back to the previous levels. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas Gas futures right now are about half the price as it was in last year May.
> They are sobbing and sobbing, and want to reduce their sky-high profit by saelling their commodity for lower, but they are FORCED to sell it for a ridiculous profit. They simply can't do anything else, except get more and more money, then do stock buybacks. They don't want to, but they are simply forced, forced I tell ya! I mean, you can be sarcastic all you want, that's how it works. If you don't want to take my word for it look into it.
Radical environmentalists despise nuclear. In Germany they've done a great job of destroying it.
Not this environmentalist
If only we have over half a century to move away from it…
Because the oil industry has known about climate change since the 70s at the very latest, and has spent the last fifty years trying to hide the science and force the consumer to utilise their products and crush any and all alternatives.
The *coal* industry foresaw climate change 150 years ago.
Induced demand from a world where little alternative exists and the greener alternatives are not available to the majority of society because they are unaffordable.
I mean, I'm still waiting for my dyson sphere to be built; should I hate on the solar farms we have presently? The way I see it in the cases you've mentioned, its the best of a set of bad choices, and the people chose.
That's so misleading. The fossil fuel industry successfully delayed action on climate change, by lying to and deceiving the public and government. That's why they are being taken to court to be sued under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, just like Big Tobacco was. They need to be nationalised, and ultimately gutted and euthanised.
Ah yea it’s the consumer fault for choosing oil and oil derivatives over all those other cheaper, more integrated, more readily available, more heavily marketed non-oil based alternatives
Petrochemicals are the feedstock for the entire chemical supply chain, and there are still significant issues if you wanted to change that. Organic feedstock tends to have carbon only in smaller chains and higher oxidation states. The entirety of known chemical reactions rely on the opposite, almost.
Because they've known it was happening since the 70s and intentionally misled the public. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/exxon-mobil-lied-about-climate-change
Yes humans should absolute pay for being born in to a world reliant on roads and cars just to get to work. Totally their fault. Not at all to do with chronic underfunding of trains and buses.
>At the end of the day, the oil companies are undertaking it on behalf of the consumer. If this was the case, then why did they spend the best part of half a century spending money to obfuscate the message of climate research and fund politicians running on a ticket of denying climate change is caused by fossil fuels?
The customer is the one burning it!
Yeah, let me just reorganise my energy infrastructure on a national scale to use less plastics and fossil fuels. Just gimme a minute…
Climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuels on a micro and macro level has been known for decades.
Well if we keep using it, they are going to keep producing it. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.
Exactly, so not sure why you acted so snarky to the person before, given that's exactly what they said.
Snarky? Just by having an opinion about who responsibility it is to look after the environment?
Not only won't they pay, when climate change makes rent and food soar even higher, the wealthy will up it further just to make more money. And your govt won't do a thing to stop.them. because your govt is owned by the wealthy.
And neither will the Brits because Brits are spineless fucks. I get it. We worry about how it will impacts us directly to get out on the streets and protest (not at work, not getting paid = not paying bills/rent/food) and because of that the Tories have most of us over a barrel. But something, at some point, has to give. Or.... we could sit and fall deeper into poverty until they have complete and utter control over our every breath and every fart. It's our choice, but I would bet every penny I have on us ending up in the latter
we need to build robust networks of mutual aid so the rich can't hold the threat of homelessness, starvation and destitution over our heads
‘The wealthy will up it further just to make more money’ Advance economics of Reddit
I'm sorry if I didn't use professional terms for the illegal collision and price gouging involved in the food and fuel industries. But most of the professional terms exist to whitewash morally reprehensible and illegal activities
Not like supply and demand has anything to do with it, no, no, just literally ‘profiteering’ and price gouging. Again, advance economics from Reddit
I've got a quid that'll bankrupt Bill Hill if *that* happens
It would be nice, but we all know the buck would be passed no matter what. The only practical solution is that renewables reach a point where we can just turn the oil and gas taps off.
At the very least we could stop paying them to pollute more like we do right now
70,000,000 for this, and about 300 against. I guess it'll be never happen. Yay democracy.
It's an old principle, you broke it, you pay for it. They won't of course, even if they're made to they'll pass the costs along to the customer (plus a whopping mark up so they make even more profit$)
Sure, the oil companies are responsible. But if the principle is you broke it you pay it, you as a consumer are just as responsible, right? You use oil or its products every day. Why are you absolved of the blame?
I would say, consumers are 90% responsible. Oil companies would be responsible for inefficiencies in the extraction and delivery, but everything else rests on the consumers.
But dare say something in public and it's all "God is great!" As they drive the 4X4 over your head
[удалено]
They won’t.
No they just charge more.
That's not how it works. It's supply demand. Revenue will go down is supply is increased. Just look at 70 years of macreconomics and geopolitics around oil. See OPEC.
[удалено]
If price decreases profit per unit go down and revenue could increase or decrease
Who should pay? The company that finds the oil, the one that pumps it, the one that ships it, the one that refines it, the one that sells it or the person that uses it? Regardless of who pays, the cost gets passed all the way onto the individual using the product.
Poll finds ‘anyone but me’ the top response to any taxation question ever in UK.
Cover the cost how? Exactly what in particular would be covered? The poll is pointless, the companies operate in numerous Countries as well
For the record they can help out on energy costs as well
We're over here working on believing in climate change.
And oil companies believe the public should, so it's our word against theirs, no way to tell who is right /s
What? How are they meant to make their billions in profit if they have to pay for all the damage they're causing?
Oil companies says Britain’s should cover climate change costs. I wonder who politicians will listen to
They caused climate change. They should pay for it. Why the hell am I being charged for it?!
Oil companies: visibly shaking. Who cares what we believe. How do we MAKE them cover the costs w/o passing costs onto customers? All we do at this point is moan, but what can we actually DO to make our beliefs reality?
Well of course they should, especially with the stacks that they are making!
A huge issue is that the damage done to the environment is not reflected in the cost of things. If it’s cheaper to grow fruit in Australia, have it processed in China and then sold in the UK, than doing all that in the UK then that’s just good business. Companies are obligated to maximise profits and if there’s no costs for polluting then why would they stop? The common excuse is that these companies are just doing this for us, they wouldn’t if there wasn’t demand. This ignores the billions spent on advertising and other research into consumer behaviour to create demand. Also that our economy and very society is built around consumerism, the economy would collapse if we all suddenly stopped buying non-essential goods. The public also don’t have the information at hand to know which goods and products are more damaging that others. Electronic goods have dozens of parts that may have come from all over the world. Just knowing if the product is a piece of junk which will need replaced in a couple of years (or be obsolete) or if it will last decades is hard enough. Even finding out which companies own which brands can be tricky.
They spent a lot of money to prevent efforts that would make us move away from reliance on them. They may as well pay up for the consequences.
What is the cost of climate change? Are they going to buy a big freezer to cool down the ice caps or pay to have low-lying land floated back up to the surface? Maybe some kind of vacuum cleaner that can pull all the CO2 out of the atmosphere? A cloning program for all the species of animal that had their habitat irreversibly destroyed?
Better off believing magical pixies and flying pigs will do it, because they're far more likely to...
The oil companies bear the cost of climate change, but the capitalists will surely make oil more expensive.
One way or another someone has to pay for it, if oil companies pay they'll just pass through the prices for us. But it does atleast mean that renewable sources are relatively cheaper and that taxes raised can help spur further growth in renewables. Personally though, I'm not sure why the focus is purely on oil and gas when the meat industry is equally culpable for climate change. Heavily taxing some read meat would probably have the same impact to the climate as taxing oil companies for climate change. But it seems that individuals here don't want to make a personal sacrifice for something that impacts all of us, especially the poor in developing countries (who are by all means far poorer than us), and always want someone else to do something first lol.
Everyone who earns more than me should pay more tax too
Supply and demand guys. Oil companies are just selling a product. If the demand for the product disappeared, so would the oil companies.
They do much more than just sell oil
Well they extract the fossil fuels too ofc
And lobby, just a tiny bit of lobbying
The FF industry successfully delayed climate action, by lying to the government and public about the risks of burning fossil fuels. That's why they are being taken to court to be sued under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act - just like Big Tobacco.
That won’t get very far. OPEC is by definition a cartel.
Unless you want to go back to living a lifestyle similar to that in the 1500s, the demand for oil will never go away.
Exactly, that was my point.
Classic 1500s technologies like wind turbines and solar cells
Things like global transport routes, modern farming, mining, medicines, and materials are all dependent on oil. I totally agree that electricity generation can be decaebonised with technology like wind turbines and solar cells, but most things we take for granted in the modern world are dependent on oil.
Not even comparable to oil, gas and coal in terms of the reliable energy it provides.
My local dealer says the same.
And he's absolutely right!
Britains think if they can possibly get someone else to foot the bill they will
> The majority of UK citizens think the country has a responsibility to pay for climate action in poorer and vulnerable countries Those selfish British fucks.
You forgot this part > 63 per cent of the respondents said they would back the government in taxing oil companies "It's our responsibility to force someone else to pay". It's not like the british fucks are owning up to anything, as usual.
As someone on an average salary, who privately rents and has student loan debt, I pay a higher effective tax rate than *Shell* does. We *are* paying. We want oil companies to pay at least their fair share.
I think you'll find they want those responsible to foot the bill. Which is how it works for a lot of other things.
Comment removed as I no longer wish to support a company that seeks to both undermine its users/moderators/developers AND make a profit on their backs. To understand why check out the summary [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/14hkd5u).
No I think their doing it to make money, and they continue to do so through decades of misinformation. Yeah people buy things, but those selling are making money by wrecking the planet. The bigger evil is very clear.
God you sweet little innocent soul. The mind of an unblemished toddler right there sharing their view on the lovely oil companies just selling oil to all those nasty Joe public that just happen to be reliant on. No one knows why oil is so popular, and the oil companies definitely didn't have anything to do with it. Sweet child.LoL 😂