Hacker News Reader

Strongly disagree. Many Americans have understood for 50 years that the only way to stop fossil fuels use would be through government regulations. But, companies like Exxon have continually used their lobbying muscle to stop it.

You state strong agreement then -- justice served with Exxon, as well as curbing what stops regulation. You mentioned one source of curbing -- companies like Exxon. I cited another -- the people of the U.S. and our lifestyles.

Independent of people's talk, the U.S. government is well representing our behavior. There's nothing stopping us from polluting less as individuals. We don't, saying government should tell us what to do. Politicians know that if voters say one thing and do another, they'll vote consistently with what they do.

You want to stop curbing environmental regulation? Show legislators that voters want it. Right now voters overwhelmingly show they want the opposite. They fly around the world for vacation when they could go camping, etc.

It's impossible for the US public to change their mind quickly as a whole. Would you disagree if I said that the US public is the public that is the most affected in the world by corporate media and marketing? Even prescription drugs are advertised here and it's rather shocking to realise that's just normal here. Similarly, greenwashing and lobbying really work and have impact on the US public. Nearly half of the US public don't believe in man-made global warming, a striking difference from the 97% consensus among climate experts [1]. You must ask yourself where this gap comes from? Big oil is and will be doing everything to slow down the public from going away from fossil fuels and the US system is built do support big corporate money.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views...

Yes, my use of paper bags instead of reusable bags is clearly in the same league as a multibillion dollar campaign to discredit science itself.

I fear for when MA decides to come after me.

Yes, the impact of the actions of individuals are miniscule compared to that of industry, but I still believe changes in the culture of consumption stand to provide substantial benefits. If everyone is a bit more conscious of the impact of their actions, we'd, for one, likely make considerable strides in the field of green tech.

It's for that reason why I may be more supportive than others of i.e., recycling programs and reducing use of plastic bags. At least the existence of which gets people thinking of what happens to their waste.

I'm completely good with the idea that everyone should try to reduce their consumption and strive to reuse materials.

I just think it's crazy to compare that to what Exxon has done.

For example, as you stated:

> In this quote, substitute for "Fossil fuel industry" and "Exxon", "we" and see how well it fits.

And let's try applying that to the quote:

> Our own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, we have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action.

Uhhhhh no? I have had scientists telling me about global warming, but they were not hired by me, or direct reports of mine. They didn't advise me on how I could steer my business, as it is one of the major contributors to this problem.

I have not spent millions of dollars a year trying to create a culture that questions scientific facts.

It's incomparable.

That's fair, and no one disagrees that this asymmetry exists. But the point wasn't to compare. The point was to highlight what can still be done on an individual level, because change there is easier to imagine happening than on the level of entire industries. Change has to start somewhere, so starting from the bottom and nurturing a healthier ideal of consumption could end up being the force that eventually pressures industries to change (by changing voters sentiments that indeed climate change is real; voting with their wallets by supporting ethical companies; etc).

That's the idea anyways. Countering this disinformation with efforts on all fronts (education, activism, lobbying, personal statements like recycling) is one of many ways to stem the tide.

Because the alternative is willful inaction on the excuse that we are not the largest wasters, which is an unproductive and defeatist mindset. If this line of thought takes root among individuals, I wager you and I both will agree that the problem of climate change will take a darker turn.

>by realizing that most of us did what Exxon did in the same time on an individual level.

To whom much is given, much is required. The power dynamic of Exxon v One Person is so wide it's not worth a comparison.

People's lives are built as a response to society. Corporations and institutions build that society. They are far more responsible for their choices than I am mine.

I can reduce my usage, you can reduce yours, that's great. It pales in comparison to what companies and governments can do.

Agreed. The current culture of consumption leaves much to be desired. Too common is the disconnect between what can be easily attained and their imperfectly unaccounted-for externalized costs. For better and for worse, this breeds growing expectations while the memories of once never having enough fades, along with certain modesties and the sense of vulnerability; we've become slightly more ignorant of how resources are made available to us. All while the desire for more continues to grow.

Somehow, we need to start making decisions with an eye closer to the long term.