Hacker News Reader

Comment by baggy_trough | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I am a climate activist and I don't want this, because temporarily reduced supply and spiking prices do not do any long-term damage to the oil companies, if anything they just make more money. What I would like to see is a steep drop in demand resulting in lower prices because nobody needs to buy oil and gas anymore.

No, this is what the madman in the White House failed to anticipate, even though he was explicitly told that this would happen.

Flagged dead (HN loves downvotes as censorship)

ku-man 6 hours ago [dead] | parent | next [–]

Perhaps he didn't fail to anticipate. Perhaps he knew what will happen but he didn't have any choice.

'climate activists' wanted a revenue neutral carbon tax that would simultaneously lower everyone's income taxes. Thus giving people the ability to 'lower their taxes' with greener choices while the energy intensive activities of the rich were harder to dodge (hard to power their private jets with electrons)

What is your comment adding to this discussion?

Do you want to say, that a specific small group of people are positive about a surge in energy costs?

How does that reflect your acceptance of the overall climate change topic you are referencing?

You do not believe in it? Or do you believe in it but you do not care? Like the latest AMOC paper doesn't bother you in particular?

Am I a climate activist if i think its very bad on one side but at least pushes more people into independent reneable energy sources?

What do you think about the thing that Trump, the Clown of the USA, is directly responsible for it? Do you think Trump is a climate activist?

You're wasting your breath. It took me a long time to realize that folks on the other side of the isle had fully bought into the 'maximal short term interest' ideology of the business community. I no longer have very much to say to them at all.

I just think it's amusing that this is presented as a very bad thing in the context of Trump, but it's what climate activists have been seeking (only more so). When climate activists pursue this goal, it's presented as a laudable self sacrifice we must accept.

Because there is a gigantic difference between "I will now change the lives of everyone on the planet just because and in a very short period of time without thinking about any long term goals or consequences" vs. "we want the planet to be habital for our children and for everyone affected by this, lets start pushing for investing into renewable energy instead of just burning fossil fuels".

Even tarifs in general are not necessarily a bad idea, its a horrendes bad idea if you wiggle your thumb around, guess numbers from 0-100 and higher, let that be printed on a piece of cardboard and present it to the world as the current leader of the biggest co2 producer and military power on the whole planet affecting suddenly everyone.

You do see the issue i hope?

Climate activists, as a whole, have not been able to materially affect costs positively or negatively, in any sector other than maybe TED talks and documentaries.

Would that you were speaking the truth for residents of California!

Reduction of fossil fuels is a good thing, but the "how" and "why" and "when" matter a lot.

This nonsense never should have happened. This was dumb as fuck.

I did not seen climate activists demand to prevent shipping of 20% of world fertilizer and to start war with Iran.

They did pushed for wind and solar electricity.

We got both, so twice as good.

Ironically Trump may end up being the most pro green energy president at the end of all of this.

Yeah, funny, all the people that turned away from EVs because the subsidies were going away suddenly realize that EVs and renewables are a much more resilient combo than being reliant on fossil fuels and their refining network.

Pro golf green.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com