Inside Exxon's playbook
July 1, 2021 7:57 AM Subscribe
"We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders." In May, Exxon senior lobbyist Keith McCoy explained to an undercover reporter why the company lied about climate science and sought to kill climate policy for the last 40 years. Yesterday, on June 30, 2021, journalist Lawrence Carter at Greenpeace's investigative arm, Unearthed, published Inside Exxon's playbook, the first of several reports to come. Today, Emily Atkin covers how the sausage got made in her excellent newsletter, Heated. The story has been covered in various outlets, including The Guardian.
I recall some of the same undercover research by Shell getting unearthed years ago, but I can't not seem to find any articles older than 2017 through a quick Google search.
Still, the oil companies have all known about climate change for years and have used systemic means to suppress that knowledge. While we individuals can and should make individual behavior choices to combat climate change, we can't alter this devastating course we're on without changing those systems put in place.
posted by TheKaijuCommuter at 8:44 AM on July 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
Still, the oil companies have all known about climate change for years and have used systemic means to suppress that knowledge. While we individuals can and should make individual behavior choices to combat climate change, we can't alter this devastating course we're on without changing those systems put in place.
posted by TheKaijuCommuter at 8:44 AM on July 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
At the very end of the Guardian piece, left there as a mental nudge, quietly saying to the reader 'Ball's in your court, now':
Out of the 11 Senators that McCoy said are key to Exxon for removing and/or diminishing climate change measures from Biden’s infrastructure bill, a majority are Democrats.
Here are the Democrats: Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Jon Tester (D-MT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).
Here are the Republicans: Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), John Barrasso (R-WY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL).
posted by eclectist at 9:04 AM on July 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
Out of the 11 Senators that McCoy said are key to Exxon for removing and/or diminishing climate change measures from Biden’s infrastructure bill, a majority are Democrats.
Here are the Democrats: Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Jon Tester (D-MT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).
Here are the Republicans: Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), John Barrasso (R-WY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Marco Rubio (R-FL).
posted by eclectist at 9:04 AM on July 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
I'm shocked. Shocked!
posted by alex_skazat at 9:06 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by alex_skazat at 9:06 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:16 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:16 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
It's almost as if ending corruption in politics is one of the most urgent measures we could take to help save our society. If only someone had run on wildly and broadly popular anti-corruption measures in 2020.
posted by Gadarene at 9:23 AM on July 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 9:23 AM on July 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
>all assets being liquidated
sad thing is they acquired their immense natural capital holdings through legalized takings of the commons
we could all be wealthy and happy as Norwegians, but we were not that smart and just let the rich take it all.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
sad thing is they acquired their immense natural capital holdings through legalized takings of the commons
we could all be wealthy and happy as Norwegians, but we were not that smart and just let the rich take it all.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
I'm baffled as to why my Senator, Maggie Hassan (D-NH), would have anything to do with this. It's New Hampshire, we have no real energy interests here, and Hassan is a solid Democrat. I'll be very curious to hear her statement about it, if she makes one at all.
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:37 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:37 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
At first I was like shouldn’t Chris Coons from Delaware be concerned that his state is going to be obliterated by climate change. Then I remembered that Delaware also has DuPont and huge refineries. Delaware is screwed
posted by interogative mood at 9:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:46 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
If we had vision, we would do this - old some comments edited with new bits in bold contextualize.
"Doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends it."
If this is true then why the hell spend it on war machines and oil? I realize that graft and influence buying are never going to go away. That's the nature of politics and capitalism. But if we must have an industrial complex running Washington, why can't it be a Clean Energy and Infrastructure Building Industrial Complex? And I know many defense contractors have branched out to run, for example, the red light cameras on my commute (which I'm fine with), and yes, there are a lot of defense dollars that do go to education, brass bands, and other non-fightin' stuff. But why build insanely expensive planes we'll never use and not build giant solar farms in the desert, fix all our crumbling bridges and levees, and massively build out high speed rail? Those would be stimulative AND actually improve our quality of life.
How can we make this switch?
posted by jetsetsc at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2011
I can't favorite jetsetsc's comment enough.
The defense contractors and oil companies should be given the contracts. The unions the labor. The congresspeople the jobs in their districts. Everyone makes out like a bandit. Except we kill less people in wars and through climate change.
In addition, if there were ever reasons to use war powers - in an existential crisis, these are they. It should be Plata o plomo. Either take the money or we destroy you.
posted by lalochezia at 8:05 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by lalochezia at 9:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
"Doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends it."
If this is true then why the hell spend it on war machines and oil? I realize that graft and influence buying are never going to go away. That's the nature of politics and capitalism. But if we must have an industrial complex running Washington, why can't it be a Clean Energy and Infrastructure Building Industrial Complex? And I know many defense contractors have branched out to run, for example, the red light cameras on my commute (which I'm fine with), and yes, there are a lot of defense dollars that do go to education, brass bands, and other non-fightin' stuff. But why build insanely expensive planes we'll never use and not build giant solar farms in the desert, fix all our crumbling bridges and levees, and massively build out high speed rail? Those would be stimulative AND actually improve our quality of life.
How can we make this switch?
posted by jetsetsc at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2011
I can't favorite jetsetsc's comment enough.
The defense contractors and oil companies should be given the contracts. The unions the labor. The congresspeople the jobs in their districts. Everyone makes out like a bandit. Except we kill less people in wars and through climate change.
In addition, if there were ever reasons to use war powers - in an existential crisis, these are they. It should be Plata o plomo. Either take the money or we destroy you.
posted by lalochezia at 8:05 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by lalochezia at 9:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
I will never understand why so few conspiracy theorists are not upset about the very real and dangerous conspiracies that actually threaten their lives.
posted by eotvos at 10:12 AM on July 1, 2021 [48 favorites]
posted by eotvos at 10:12 AM on July 1, 2021 [48 favorites]
Yeah, and this article didn't even cover their deception on carbon capture
They are so far ahead of the democrats, running circles around them
posted by eustatic at 10:13 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
They are so far ahead of the democrats, running circles around them
posted by eustatic at 10:13 AM on July 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
At first I was like shouldn’t Chris Coons from Delaware be concerned that his state is going to be obliterated by climate change. Then I remembered that Delaware also has DuPont and huge refineries. Delaware is screwed
Exxon makes it clear that Coons is there specifically because he has Biden's ear...and lo and behold:
Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Plan Is a Stalking Horse for Privatization
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
Exxon makes it clear that Coons is there specifically because he has Biden's ear...and lo and behold:
Bipartisan Senate Infrastructure Plan Is a Stalking Horse for Privatization
There was a time when Democrats did oppose such schemes; it was during the Trump administration. To the extent that Trump had an infrastructure vision, it was rooted in privatization. Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, who would each take high-level jobs in the Trump administration, wrote a paper before the 2016 election outlining their vision: $1 trillion in investment provided by private bond buyers, who would be guaranteed a tax credit to buy the bonds, interest on the debt, and an equity stake with dividends (with up to a 10 percent profit margin). It adds the usual song and dance about how private enterprise is so much more efficient than the public sector, therefore saving money overall.Looks like we got at least part of the answer to that question.
It takes about two seconds to recognize how ridiculous this is. The government doesn’t require a 10 percent margin on equity, tax credits, and interest payments. That’s a layer of profit that gets built into the expenditure. Governments usually contract out design and construction to private contractors, but there are only two ways for these companies to reduce ownership and operation costs below what the public sector would spend, while still being profitable. They can cut back, either on safety or labor or maintenance; or they can extract a lot of profit from users of the infrastructure (think toll roads). If the infrastructure isn’t inherently profitable, like a bridge in New York City or a toll road in southern California might be, the upgrade probably won’t get built.
Democrats rightly and loudly objected to giving up public assets to private investors at the time. The biggest money-makers would be favored, they said, and less lucrative projects in rural or impoverished areas shunned. Governments would not only lose ownership but democratic control over roads, water systems, electrical grids, and who knows what else. As companies manage costs, it could lead to less resilient, more dangerous infrastructure. And the public would have a high likelihood of being gouged.
So why would Democrats entertain going down the exact same road under Biden that they rebuffed under Trump?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
These articles come out every few years - the Panama Papers, payoffs, funding news outlets etc. There's a kerfluffle, a junior representative authors a bill and then it crawls off to the Woke World Web for a peaceful retirement.
I know, fight the good fight, sing to the echo chamber whenever possible, but the fact is that the low-information types outnumber everyone and can be driven to vote only on fearmongering and demagoguery about guns and gays and don't-cost-nothin' baby Jesus?
Unless there's a way for this kind of thing to threaten their guns or bumper stickers or self-image, the only real change will be from campaign finance laws and those have been lobotomized by professionals.
The plutocrats will not change, because their profit model requires them to stay the same, and will only be changed when they are forced to by objective circumstance, not tweets or cable news shows.
posted by lon_star at 10:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
I know, fight the good fight, sing to the echo chamber whenever possible, but the fact is that the low-information types outnumber everyone and can be driven to vote only on fearmongering and demagoguery about guns and gays and don't-cost-nothin' baby Jesus?
Unless there's a way for this kind of thing to threaten their guns or bumper stickers or self-image, the only real change will be from campaign finance laws and those have been lobotomized by professionals.
The plutocrats will not change, because their profit model requires them to stay the same, and will only be changed when they are forced to by objective circumstance, not tweets or cable news shows.
posted by lon_star at 10:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
I'll be very curious to hear her statement about it, if she makes one at all.
She probably won't, unless constituents like you call her to let her know you are watching.
And I don't know anything about her and am not saying that from a place of cynicism (though I have that aplenty) or skepticism about her particularly. That's just how the political system's incentives work.
posted by solotoro at 11:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
She probably won't, unless constituents like you call her to let her know you are watching.
And I don't know anything about her and am not saying that from a place of cynicism (though I have that aplenty) or skepticism about her particularly. That's just how the political system's incentives work.
posted by solotoro at 11:01 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Maybe Skynet was right.
Might be too soon to mention Crake, right?
posted by Slackermagee at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Might be too soon to mention Crake, right?
posted by Slackermagee at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
As Utah Phillips said, "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses." And offices in Congress.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:47 AM on July 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
Still, the oil companies have all known about climate change for years
2024 will be the 200th anniversary of the Greenhouse Effect's* discovery.
That 1824 discovery was experimentally confirmed in the 1860s. The first calculation showing that increasing CO2 would raise the Earth's temperature was done in 1896.
Exxon scientists informed upper management that CO2 emissions will likely raise temperatures by 2-3C as early as 1977.
*The name isn't really accurate, but it's easier to say than "the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmospheric temperature."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
2024 will be the 200th anniversary of the Greenhouse Effect's* discovery.
That 1824 discovery was experimentally confirmed in the 1860s. The first calculation showing that increasing CO2 would raise the Earth's temperature was done in 1896.
Exxon scientists informed upper management that CO2 emissions will likely raise temperatures by 2-3C as early as 1977.
*The name isn't really accurate, but it's easier to say than "the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmospheric temperature."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:58 AM on July 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
Yeah, "effectively denied" seems more accurate than "suppressed". I think I learned about global warming in the 1980s from and episode of Newton's Apple on PBS.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 12:14 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 12:14 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Here's an Aussie tip for Canadians, if you have a chest freezer, you can keep your pillows in there. Because this is the new normal.
posted by adept256 at 12:22 PM on July 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 12:22 PM on July 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I've been saying this for a while now, but if this isn't proof that electoral politics is a waste of fucking time, then nothing is.
posted by wuwei at 12:49 PM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by wuwei at 12:49 PM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Aussie tip for Canadians
That's a good one, thanks.
Canucks are really messed up right now. They are like, "OMFG, turn up the AC! Oh, and book our flight to Mexico for Christmas!"
posted by No Robots at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
That's a good one, thanks.
Canucks are really messed up right now. They are like, "OMFG, turn up the AC! Oh, and book our flight to Mexico for Christmas!"
posted by No Robots at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Or from a discussion hosted by the New York Times:
People may look back to our time and say, Here was a crux, and then they blew it. This is the power of the basic science-fictional exercise of looking at our own time as if from the future, thus judging ourselves as actors in creating history. From that imaginary perspective, it can sometimes become blazingly obvious what we should do now. Parochial concerns over quarterly returns or the selfish privileges of currently existing wealthy people fade to insignificance when you take the long view and see us teetering on the edge of causing a mass-extinction event that would hammer all future living creatures.
-Kim Stanley Robinson
posted by doctornemo at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
People may look back to our time and say, Here was a crux, and then they blew it. This is the power of the basic science-fictional exercise of looking at our own time as if from the future, thus judging ourselves as actors in creating history. From that imaginary perspective, it can sometimes become blazingly obvious what we should do now. Parochial concerns over quarterly returns or the selfish privileges of currently existing wealthy people fade to insignificance when you take the long view and see us teetering on the edge of causing a mass-extinction event that would hammer all future living creatures.
-Kim Stanley Robinson
posted by doctornemo at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
I will never understand why so few conspiracy theorists are not upset about the very real and dangerous conspiracies that actually threaten their lives.
Because they don't involve imaginary Jews, Socialists or Women.
posted by happyroach at 1:30 PM on July 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
Because they don't involve imaginary Jews, Socialists or Women.
posted by happyroach at 1:30 PM on July 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm about halfway through Kim Stanley Robinson's new(ish) book about climate change Ministry for the Future and so yeah, this news is utterly unsurprising AND ALSO in the book there are some...suggestions...for how to handle oil company CEOs and their whole mass murdering cohort.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:36 PM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 1:36 PM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
So how are those "activist investors" working out.
posted by Pyry at 1:38 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 1:38 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I will never understand why so few conspiracy theorists are not upset about the very real and dangerous conspiracies that actually threaten their lives.
I actually have read a couple articles on that recently. Mike Rothschild has been covering QAnon since it was a weird 4chan phenomenon and his read is:
Our lives are often full of failure—personal, professional, and collective. We don’t want to believe these failures are due to honest mistakes by others or random chance. And most of all, we don’t want to believe that they’re our own fault. To believe otherwise is to believe that either we screwed up, or that we have no control over what happens to us. And that’s just too horrible to accept...For the QAnon adherent, Q is not a conspiracy theory—and many believers bristle at the term, calling themselves “conspiracy researchers” instead. It’s a way of clearly seeing the world and of organizing the players into columns of good guys and bad guys. And it provides its believers something nobody usually expects out of cultish conspiracy movements—hope. Q believers speak excitedly of the promise of a new future that Q would deliver—something ex-believer Jitarth Jadeja explained to me. “I wanted to believe that the good guys were fighting the good fight, and in a better future,” he told me over Zoom. “Q makes you feel important and gives you meaning and self-esteem. You are saving the world when you’re in Q, [it’s] the highest way you can view yourself.”
And then this article on the Satanic Panic, which I probably got from here.
It is also that we prefer tall tales to true accounts of abuse again, and again, and again.
To which I would add or, maybe, synthesize, it's easy. It makes these intractable problems easy to solve. You kill the Jews or the Democrats or the Satan worshippers or whatever and all the bad stuff goes away. But it's also classic Bad Guys vs. Good Guys storytelling. You never have to reconcile the fact that the popular pastor everyone loves was molesting kids or the fact that your creepy relative actually should've been kept away from the kids. You don't have to reckon with the cost of your American lifestyle or think about what driving your jacked-up F-150 to Wal-Mart actually costs, in terms of society. Instead it's just these demonic (sometimes literally!) forces, but don't worry, there's order in the universe and the Good Guys(tm) are fighting them.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 3:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
I actually have read a couple articles on that recently. Mike Rothschild has been covering QAnon since it was a weird 4chan phenomenon and his read is:
Our lives are often full of failure—personal, professional, and collective. We don’t want to believe these failures are due to honest mistakes by others or random chance. And most of all, we don’t want to believe that they’re our own fault. To believe otherwise is to believe that either we screwed up, or that we have no control over what happens to us. And that’s just too horrible to accept...For the QAnon adherent, Q is not a conspiracy theory—and many believers bristle at the term, calling themselves “conspiracy researchers” instead. It’s a way of clearly seeing the world and of organizing the players into columns of good guys and bad guys. And it provides its believers something nobody usually expects out of cultish conspiracy movements—hope. Q believers speak excitedly of the promise of a new future that Q would deliver—something ex-believer Jitarth Jadeja explained to me. “I wanted to believe that the good guys were fighting the good fight, and in a better future,” he told me over Zoom. “Q makes you feel important and gives you meaning and self-esteem. You are saving the world when you’re in Q, [it’s] the highest way you can view yourself.”
And then this article on the Satanic Panic, which I probably got from here.
It is also that we prefer tall tales to true accounts of abuse again, and again, and again.
To which I would add or, maybe, synthesize, it's easy. It makes these intractable problems easy to solve. You kill the Jews or the Democrats or the Satan worshippers or whatever and all the bad stuff goes away. But it's also classic Bad Guys vs. Good Guys storytelling. You never have to reconcile the fact that the popular pastor everyone loves was molesting kids or the fact that your creepy relative actually should've been kept away from the kids. You don't have to reckon with the cost of your American lifestyle or think about what driving your jacked-up F-150 to Wal-Mart actually costs, in terms of society. Instead it's just these demonic (sometimes literally!) forces, but don't worry, there's order in the universe and the Good Guys(tm) are fighting them.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 3:47 PM on July 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
If this sort of thing upsets you, call your senators, call your reps, support candidates that care about the environment. But don't stop there, join the DSA, get in the streets, join Sunrise, join or start a union, run for something, plan a local action do it all and get your friends to join you. This is the death of everything we are talking about, time to get really involved.
posted by stilgar at 5:10 PM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by stilgar at 5:10 PM on July 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
There was a news story that I saw a few weeks ago about the Israel-Palestine blood feud over settlements and I swear to God that there is a valid reason why I am bringing this story up.
An Israeli gent was overseeing the seizing of East Jerusalem property belonging to a Palestinian family _that he apparently knew_, judging from the lady of the house calling him by his name. She insisted, "You are stealing my house!" as a reporter looked on with camera in hand, and he responded with a shrug. "If I don't steal it, someone else will steal it" was his answer.
If I don't do this, someone else will, so I may as well be the one to benefit from what I know is wrong.
If that isn't on a plaque on the wall of every fossil fuel and oil company's CEO, it should be.
posted by delfin at 5:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
An Israeli gent was overseeing the seizing of East Jerusalem property belonging to a Palestinian family _that he apparently knew_, judging from the lady of the house calling him by his name. She insisted, "You are stealing my house!" as a reporter looked on with camera in hand, and he responded with a shrug. "If I don't steal it, someone else will steal it" was his answer.
If I don't do this, someone else will, so I may as well be the one to benefit from what I know is wrong.
If that isn't on a plaque on the wall of every fossil fuel and oil company's CEO, it should be.
posted by delfin at 5:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
Here's the thing though about going after corporate executives. What is their education background? How many lawyers, accountants, scientists and engineers are we talking about? What is so sick about our higher learning that it seems completely content to provide the management cadres?
posted by No Robots at 7:16 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by No Robots at 7:16 PM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
"Looking out for our shareholders" does not justify exploiting market failures - in this case, the fact that it's free to dump fossil CO2 into the atmosphere - and blocking legislation which would correct those failures.
Joseph Heath on business ethics, i.e. the professional responsibilities of managers:
posted by russilwvong at 11:21 PM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Joseph Heath on business ethics, i.e. the professional responsibilities of managers:
... the central rationale for having private profit-seeking firms is to establish competition among suppliers and consumers. This competition drives prices toward market-clearing levels, allowing society in turn to generate a more efficient allocation of its resources and labor time. ...From Morality, Competition, and the Firm: A Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics.
Thus if we ask what the obligations of managers are, the answer can be provided quite directly. The function of the market economy is to produce the most efficient use of our productive resources possible. ...
[After reviewing a number of ethical guidelines which are analogous to those in sports, e.g. do not cheat or game the rules:] There is one more general imperative that should be mentioned, which does not have a precise analog in sport. One of the most troubling features of the way businesses conduct themselves in the public sphere is that they consistently lobby against regulations that are designed to correct market imperfections (Baumol 1974). For example, the petroleum industry fought vociferously against the ban on leaded gasoline, just as American automakers lobbied against mandatory seat belts, safety glass, catalytic converters, fuel economy standards, etc. This is, in a sense doubly unethical - not only did these firms exploit market failures, but they dedicated considerable resources to entrenching those failures (even when there was only a marginal business case to be made for doing so). Thus, the fifth imperative might be, "Don't oppose rule changes that have as their goal the correction of a market failure."
Warren Fraleigh, in Right Actions in Sport, defines the "good sports contest" as "one in which the personal intended ends of actions are congruent with or consistent with the purpose of the sports contest." The central claim here is somewhat subtle: the participants need not actually intend the larger purpose, but their intentions must be consistent with it. The same can be said with regard to competitive strategies in business. Managers need not intend the greater social good; they may adopt competitive strategies with an eye only toward the maximization of profit. However, the strategies that they adopt in order to obtain profit must be consistent with the greater social good that serves as the "purpose" of the market economy, namely efficiency in production and allocation of goods and services. The imperatives outline above represent an attempt to articulate the type of constraints that this sort of consistency imposes.
posted by russilwvong at 11:21 PM on July 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
If I don't do this, someone else will
This is also the Scramble for Africa, and generally a big proportion of world history for the last 500 years or so.
posted by gimonca at 4:23 AM on July 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
This is also the Scramble for Africa, and generally a big proportion of world history for the last 500 years or so.
posted by gimonca at 4:23 AM on July 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
Blaming Exxon is an excuse. We haven’t fouled our planet because Exxon told us to. We’ve done so because we all of us get untold riches and ease of life from doing so, and now we don’t know how to collectively back out of it.
We’ve had all the proof we’ve needed in public documents for decades.
Yes, many people would rather deny there’s a dilemma than deal with it, and yes, Exxon et al have helped give them a pretext for denial. But seriously, people grab climate denialism out of the god damn air. Have you ever tried to talk to someone who refuses to acknowledge climate change is a problem? Do you really believe that if Exxon had different policies those people would speak differently?
This feels like history as the story of villains. I don’t like it.
posted by argybarg at 6:14 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
We’ve had all the proof we’ve needed in public documents for decades.
Yes, many people would rather deny there’s a dilemma than deal with it, and yes, Exxon et al have helped give them a pretext for denial. But seriously, people grab climate denialism out of the god damn air. Have you ever tried to talk to someone who refuses to acknowledge climate change is a problem? Do you really believe that if Exxon had different policies those people would speak differently?
This feels like history as the story of villains. I don’t like it.
posted by argybarg at 6:14 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Do you really believe that if Exxon had different policies those people would speak differently?
They literally spent untold amounts of money on propaganda to make people think this way so it's a resounding fucking Yes it would be different because there would be a lot fewer people exposed to propaganda and "pulling climate denialism out of thin air."
Their propaganda to convince the public it wasn't real or not as bad as science made it out to be is an absolutely massive part of WHY people believe that nonsense, and if you don't think it had an effect on a large number of people, you are incredibly naive. They are only able to pull it out of thin air because of seventy god damned years or more of non-stop propaganda paid for by oil companies.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:45 AM on July 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
They literally spent untold amounts of money on propaganda to make people think this way so it's a resounding fucking Yes it would be different because there would be a lot fewer people exposed to propaganda and "pulling climate denialism out of thin air."
Their propaganda to convince the public it wasn't real or not as bad as science made it out to be is an absolutely massive part of WHY people believe that nonsense, and if you don't think it had an effect on a large number of people, you are incredibly naive. They are only able to pull it out of thin air because of seventy god damned years or more of non-stop propaganda paid for by oil companies.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:45 AM on July 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
people grab climate denialism out of the god damn air.
But seriously, they don’t. Companies don’t spend millions of dollars on lobbying and PR because it’s useless. They do it because it works. Which is what the fucking article is about. And one of the things that these companies have spent a lot of money on is convincing consumers and politicians that we are responsible as individuals for the current shit show. Because that way, they can keep going about their business as usual. Which is both deadly and profitable, and they only really care about the latter part.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:58 AM on July 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
But seriously, they don’t. Companies don’t spend millions of dollars on lobbying and PR because it’s useless. They do it because it works. Which is what the fucking article is about. And one of the things that these companies have spent a lot of money on is convincing consumers and politicians that we are responsible as individuals for the current shit show. Because that way, they can keep going about their business as usual. Which is both deadly and profitable, and they only really care about the latter part.
posted by Bella Donna at 7:58 AM on July 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
> if you don't think it had an effect on a large number of people, you are incredibly naive
I'm not sure why our dialogue on this has to include speculative insults. I get that you feel passionately on this issue; I do too.
I do not believe there was an alternate-history version of the GOP that did not include wholesale denialism and obstruction on dealing with climate change. I believe we can disagree on that point without invective.
posted by argybarg at 8:15 AM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure why our dialogue on this has to include speculative insults. I get that you feel passionately on this issue; I do too.
I do not believe there was an alternate-history version of the GOP that did not include wholesale denialism and obstruction on dealing with climate change. I believe we can disagree on that point without invective.
posted by argybarg at 8:15 AM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
argybarg: We haven’t fouled our planet because Exxon told us to. We’ve done so because we all of us get untold riches and ease of life from doing so, and now we don’t know how to collectively back out of it.
There's no question that climate change would be a tough problem even without Exxon's disinformation campaigns. It's a global collective action problem, meaning that countries have a very strong incentive to free-ride: let other countries try to cut their emissions, we'll go ahead and take advantage of cheap energy. So nobody really cuts their emissions.
But responding to the threat of a conquering power (Spain under the Hapsburgs, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Germany under Wilhelm II and Hitler, the Soviet Union during the Cold War) is also a collective action problem with a strong incentive to free-ride: let other countries pay their blood and treasure to fight the conqueror, we'll see who wins. So then nobody would try to fight the conqueror. Why didn't this happen in Europe? One big reason is that Britain was always putting together a coalition to maintain the balance of power, always switching to the weaker side. In other words, if you've got a strong enough player, you can overcome a collective action problem.
With global warming, the obvious candidate would be the United States. The pivotal period appears to have been the George H. W. Bush administration: Bush the Elder didn't have strong opinions on global warming, but his chief of staff, John Sununu, was opposed to acting. Nathaniel Rich.
Nevertheless, I would argue that even if it's simplistic to blame Exxon, lobbying to block the US government from acting and running misinformation campaigns to deceive public opinion are huge violations of business ethics, magnified by the fact that the stakes are so high. "Oh, we had to look out for our shareholders" isn't an excuse. The set of permissible business strategies is constrained - you can't just do anything to maximize profits. Joseph Heath, An Adversarial Ethic for Business:
There's no question that climate change would be a tough problem even without Exxon's disinformation campaigns. It's a global collective action problem, meaning that countries have a very strong incentive to free-ride: let other countries try to cut their emissions, we'll go ahead and take advantage of cheap energy. So nobody really cuts their emissions.
But responding to the threat of a conquering power (Spain under the Hapsburgs, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Germany under Wilhelm II and Hitler, the Soviet Union during the Cold War) is also a collective action problem with a strong incentive to free-ride: let other countries pay their blood and treasure to fight the conqueror, we'll see who wins. So then nobody would try to fight the conqueror. Why didn't this happen in Europe? One big reason is that Britain was always putting together a coalition to maintain the balance of power, always switching to the weaker side. In other words, if you've got a strong enough player, you can overcome a collective action problem.
With global warming, the obvious candidate would be the United States. The pivotal period appears to have been the George H. W. Bush administration: Bush the Elder didn't have strong opinions on global warming, but his chief of staff, John Sununu, was opposed to acting. Nathaniel Rich.
Nevertheless, I would argue that even if it's simplistic to blame Exxon, lobbying to block the US government from acting and running misinformation campaigns to deceive public opinion are huge violations of business ethics, magnified by the fact that the stakes are so high. "Oh, we had to look out for our shareholders" isn't an excuse. The set of permissible business strategies is constrained - you can't just do anything to maximize profits. Joseph Heath, An Adversarial Ethic for Business:
... like every other form of competition, market competition also has a tendency to go off the rails when improperly regulated. In principle, there is no reason why firms could not compete with one another by blowing up each others’ factories and hiring assassins to kill each others’ CEOs. Such a scenario is no less implausible than figure skaters sending out thugs to kneecap their opponents. In fact, one need only look at the experiences of the various “transition economies” in the former Communist bloc to see the sort of outrageous behavior that improperly regulated marketplace competition may generate. For example, in 1994, shortly after the privatization of agriculture and food production in Hungary, the country was swept by an epidemic of lead poisoning. After searching far and wide for the cause, doctors and scientists finally tracked down the source of the problem. Manufacturers of paprika – a staple of Hungarian cuisine – had been grinding up old paint, much of it lead-based, and adding it to the spice in order to improve its color. The practice was so widespread that officials in Hungary were forced to order all the paprika in the country removed from store shelves and destroyed."This wasn't illegal" is also not an excuse:
... the law already prohibits firms from employing excessively anti-social competitive strategies. Thus some have been tempted by the view that it is redundant to constrain competition by adding on a moral prohibition, above and beyond the obligation to obey the law. But the law is a blunt instrument.If it is impossible to design a set of rules to create a perfect competition in sport, it is even more difficult to design a set of rules to perfect our system of markets. Thus there may be cases in which is it possible to employ competitive strategies in business that, while not technically illegal, nevertheless defeat the purpose of the market system. It is here that moral constraint is required.posted by russilwvong at 9:30 AM on July 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
The set of permissible business strategies is constrained - you can't just do anything to maximize profits.
This is America. We beg to differ.
In particular, the era of which you speak -- the Reagan-GHWB era -- was a flashpoint of deregulation and removal of oversight by perhaps the one engine capable of checking unfettered greed and unethical practices in American commerce, its federal government. It was an era of corporate raiding, hostile takeovers, insider trading, asset-stripping and often outright fraud. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good" was its watchword, thanks to an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas portraying a composite of many of its most flagrant offenders.
Ethics were for decades-old Jimmy Stewart movies. This was when transferring as much wealth as possible from as many people to as few people as possible kicked into overdrive in America... and the country is still paying the bill.
As we are noting above, so, too, are the rest of the world.
posted by delfin at 9:59 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
This is America. We beg to differ.
In particular, the era of which you speak -- the Reagan-GHWB era -- was a flashpoint of deregulation and removal of oversight by perhaps the one engine capable of checking unfettered greed and unethical practices in American commerce, its federal government. It was an era of corporate raiding, hostile takeovers, insider trading, asset-stripping and often outright fraud. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good" was its watchword, thanks to an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas portraying a composite of many of its most flagrant offenders.
Ethics were for decades-old Jimmy Stewart movies. This was when transferring as much wealth as possible from as many people to as few people as possible kicked into overdrive in America... and the country is still paying the bill.
As we are noting above, so, too, are the rest of the world.
posted by delfin at 9:59 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
delfin: I think we might be talking about two different things. I'm providing an explanation of what's wrong with Exxon's business practices revealed by this story (a normative argument). You're saying that American business practices since the 1980s have commonly been unethical, driven by the "greed is good" mentality (a factual argument).
That an unethical practice is common doesn't make it ethical.
posted by russilwvong at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
That an unethical practice is common doesn't make it ethical.
posted by russilwvong at 10:29 AM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I am not at all suggesting that Exxon's practices were or are ethical. I am suggesting that "is it ethical?" did not even cross their minds as a criteria, nor did nearly anyone truly expect it to.
posted by delfin at 10:42 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by delfin at 10:42 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
argybarg's comment inspires a lot of good lines of discussion to reject it. Let me add a few: solar panels, electric cars, electric windmills, hydroelectric power gen all predate World War I as does knowledge of greenhouse effect. Sustainable renewable energy was always an option, just like prechemcial/industrial ag (nee organic) was. But an opyion for whom to choose and who to suffer.
"We haven’t fouled our planet because Exxon told us to. We’ve done so because we all of us get untold riches and ease of life from doing so, and now we don’t know how to collectively back out of it."
Who is this "we" and are we really smooshing together titans of industry and their politicians with the workers and slaves of their fiefdoms into this. The "we" who choose for all of us and the "we" who got untold riches are not identical to the "we" who got black lung, burned out by wildfire or arrested for protesting this bullshit.
world wide industrial civilization has no problem with fostering and maintainjng global currency flows, title/ownership registration, share markets, intermodal goods transportation, interoperability of communicstions and power and fuel grades etc. its not a hard problem for the people with power and its an impossible problem for the people without.
The hierarchical market imperial ecocide deathcult has most of the worlds money, nukes/uavs, lawyers and ad-budgets etc.
Sternly-Worded-Letters-Against-The-Machine won't cut it.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:23 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
"We haven’t fouled our planet because Exxon told us to. We’ve done so because we all of us get untold riches and ease of life from doing so, and now we don’t know how to collectively back out of it."
Who is this "we" and are we really smooshing together titans of industry and their politicians with the workers and slaves of their fiefdoms into this. The "we" who choose for all of us and the "we" who got untold riches are not identical to the "we" who got black lung, burned out by wildfire or arrested for protesting this bullshit.
world wide industrial civilization has no problem with fostering and maintainjng global currency flows, title/ownership registration, share markets, intermodal goods transportation, interoperability of communicstions and power and fuel grades etc. its not a hard problem for the people with power and its an impossible problem for the people without.
The hierarchical market imperial ecocide deathcult has most of the worlds money, nukes/uavs, lawyers and ad-budgets etc.
Sternly-Worded-Letters-Against-The-Machine won't cut it.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:23 AM on July 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
We can in fight this, but as the song says "fight with tools". consumer guilt and greenwashed projects are a slow uphill slog to nowhere. Join aid and defend communities that reject exploitation of people and environment, use your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourself and others from those who are poisoning you and your family and our world.
Any system of laws or economics or culture or government that encourages or even permits ecological suicide is illegitimate.
Thank you have a nice rage against the dying of the light.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:28 AM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Any system of laws or economics or culture or government that encourages or even permits ecological suicide is illegitimate.
Thank you have a nice rage against the dying of the light.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 11:28 AM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Ah, yes, all those militias with strong environmental ethics that everyone loves, going around shooting... people who drive SUVs?
My life is, like it or not, inextricably linked to many others, and I just don't think that opting out of (all, I guess?) systems of laws and culture will really bring me joy or make much difference, you know?
posted by sagc at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2021
My life is, like it or not, inextricably linked to many others, and I just don't think that opting out of (all, I guess?) systems of laws and culture will really bring me joy or make much difference, you know?
posted by sagc at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2021
Somewhere between "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" and "kill everyone who doesnt share our exact idosyncratic anarchoprimitive-ecofascist -libertarian neopaleo" whatever militia you think i was advocating for is a whole range of actions.
If you have less than nation-state level or multinational corp level resources consider the history of organized labor or slave abolition of resistance to an liberation from colonial empirires.
We have more choices than status-quo cartel Fascism vs your hypothetical ecofascist miliia is a false choice. Whether fascisms maschot is a solar panel a jesus or a free market or a pure volk is irrelevant. Violence in self defense is not the same as violence for profit. Sustainable harvest from the land is not the same as scorched earth extraction. Organizing for popular survivial is not the same as consiring for public deception.
We live in a system of exploitation, it is not natural just or inevitable, it was not always this way, it is not this way everywhere all the time, it doesnt have to remain this way. Not all alternatives to it are just or safe or improvements.
tldr: i cant bumper-sticker tweet a coherent system of sustainable social and environmental relations and the means to achieve them.
idk the
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:33 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you have less than nation-state level or multinational corp level resources consider the history of organized labor or slave abolition of resistance to an liberation from colonial empirires.
We have more choices than status-quo cartel Fascism vs your hypothetical ecofascist miliia is a false choice. Whether fascisms maschot is a solar panel a jesus or a free market or a pure volk is irrelevant. Violence in self defense is not the same as violence for profit. Sustainable harvest from the land is not the same as scorched earth extraction. Organizing for popular survivial is not the same as consiring for public deception.
We live in a system of exploitation, it is not natural just or inevitable, it was not always this way, it is not this way everywhere all the time, it doesnt have to remain this way. Not all alternatives to it are just or safe or improvements.
tldr: i cant bumper-sticker tweet a coherent system of sustainable social and environmental relations and the means to achieve them.
idk the
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:33 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm curious how the second amendment as you advocate intersects with environmental justice, because I still don't know how you're supposed to use your legal guns to stop Exxon. Like, how do I shoot an oil company?
posted by sagc at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by sagc at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
My sincere apologies for all the typos and ranting. I need to step away from this for a bit.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2021
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2021
I think the question "How do I kill an Oil company or better yet all oil companies" is a good starting point, then when you have brainstormed half a dozen ideas create or join a group that has a chance at succeeding.
Can we buy enough shares to change the actions of the company.
Can we crush the share price or throttle their access to debt finance.
Can we evict their product, facilities or managers from our town, county, province or nation.
Can we investigate and try their executives, in our courts? in international courts? by citizens arrest and public tribunal?
Can we interferre with their deadly operations?
yadda yadda yadda.
No shooting at random SUVs required.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:06 PM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Can we buy enough shares to change the actions of the company.
Can we crush the share price or throttle their access to debt finance.
Can we evict their product, facilities or managers from our town, county, province or nation.
Can we investigate and try their executives, in our courts? in international courts? by citizens arrest and public tribunal?
Can we interferre with their deadly operations?
yadda yadda yadda.
No shooting at random SUVs required.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:06 PM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Beats using a bidet as a personal airconditioner while a heat-dome incinerates your neighbors.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:08 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:08 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Why on earth did you mention the right to own a gun? I definitely am not the one who brought up the 2nd amendment.
posted by sagc at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2021
posted by sagc at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2021
As for 2nd amendment self defense you'll need that, becauae if you successfully get your county to block a permit or require a surety bond or close a facility, they will come for you. See standing rock, see ecuador, see bakken and permian land owners etc.
Self defense is moral and legal though many courts will allow Mr Zimmerman to walk but not Ms Alexander
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:15 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Self defense is moral and legal though many courts will allow Mr Zimmerman to walk but not Ms Alexander
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:15 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
If you take on Big Oil via legal means, you can end up in a tremendous world of hurt. (Grauniad)
Trying to take on Big Oil via extralegal means, let alone violent means, is left as an exercise for a far braver reader than I.
posted by delfin at 1:23 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Trying to take on Big Oil via extralegal means, let alone violent means, is left as an exercise for a far braver reader than I.
posted by delfin at 1:23 PM on July 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
This topic/discussion brings three quotes to mind.
"The universe runs on three things: matter, energy and self-interest." -- Babylon 5
"It is unfortunate that America's interests don't always align with our values." -- James Baker
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." -- (reportedly) Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
posted by zaixfeep at 1:43 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
"The universe runs on three things: matter, energy and self-interest." -- Babylon 5
"It is unfortunate that America's interests don't always align with our values." -- James Baker
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." -- (reportedly) Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
posted by zaixfeep at 1:43 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
This story about the Miami condo collapse serves as an illustrative example of how we're collectively dealing with climate change. The key part:
...over the course of the last couple years, the condo board had been pushing for residents to get on board for these repairs. And they couldn’t get people on the same page. And the longer they pushed it back, the higher the costs got, because the repairs—it accelerates if you don’t address it. And because it needed to be this collectivized kind of decision, they couldn’t reach that kind of decision and they couldn’t make the repairs that needed to be done.
People don't want to spend the money even when their investments and/or lives are directly threatened, because they don't believe it or think it'll be someone else's problem, and a collapsed condo/ecosystem is the end point.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:26 PM on July 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
...over the course of the last couple years, the condo board had been pushing for residents to get on board for these repairs. And they couldn’t get people on the same page. And the longer they pushed it back, the higher the costs got, because the repairs—it accelerates if you don’t address it. And because it needed to be this collectivized kind of decision, they couldn’t reach that kind of decision and they couldn’t make the repairs that needed to be done.
People don't want to spend the money even when their investments and/or lives are directly threatened, because they don't believe it or think it'll be someone else's problem, and a collapsed condo/ecosystem is the end point.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:26 PM on July 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
The insurance companies are going to have a field day with that one.
posted by rhizome at 11:39 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 11:39 PM on July 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
"The universe runs on three things: matter, energy and self-interest." -- Babylon 5
"The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." -- G'Kar
The enlightened part is the hard part.
posted by mikelieman at 4:59 AM on July 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
"The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." -- G'Kar
The enlightened part is the hard part.
posted by mikelieman at 4:59 AM on July 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
If you take on Big Oil via legal means, you can end up in a tremendous world of hurt. (Grauniad)
Trying to take on Big Oil via extralegal means, let alone violent means, is left as an exercise for a far braver reader than I.
If anyone missed it, they're authorizing the National Guard to use lethal force against pipeline protestors.
Yeah, honestly, when the punishment for protesting is being shot and the punishment for blowing up a pipeline is being shot, I can guarantee you that the protests will stop and the explosions will start.
"You're gonna get shot anyway, may as well actually get something useful done," is how a lot of people will end up viewing it.
Which like, does the government want climate martyrs? Because this is how you get climate martyrs.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:09 AM on July 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Trying to take on Big Oil via extralegal means, let alone violent means, is left as an exercise for a far braver reader than I.
If anyone missed it, they're authorizing the National Guard to use lethal force against pipeline protestors.
Yeah, honestly, when the punishment for protesting is being shot and the punishment for blowing up a pipeline is being shot, I can guarantee you that the protests will stop and the explosions will start.
"You're gonna get shot anyway, may as well actually get something useful done," is how a lot of people will end up viewing it.
Which like, does the government want climate martyrs? Because this is how you get climate martyrs.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:09 AM on July 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
This story about the Miami condo collapse serves as an illustrative example of how we're collectively dealing with climate change.
Yeah there was just a story about Key West trying to save itself and even in the face of, like, the water literally bubbling up through asphalt because Key West is basically a pancake on top of the ocean, there's still very strong and oh so American BUT MAH PROPERTY VALUE! MAH RIGHTS! reactions. Also in Miami, the Corps of Engineers wants to build a 20 foot seawall (holy shit!) to protect parts of the city and is getting pushback from people like "Hrmm, but MAH PROPERTY VALUE! MAH OCEAN VIEW!" Like you're going to have a great fucking ocean view when the ocean is in your living room, I suppose, but it seems bad to me.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:49 AM on July 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
Yeah there was just a story about Key West trying to save itself and even in the face of, like, the water literally bubbling up through asphalt because Key West is basically a pancake on top of the ocean, there's still very strong and oh so American BUT MAH PROPERTY VALUE! MAH RIGHTS! reactions. Also in Miami, the Corps of Engineers wants to build a 20 foot seawall (holy shit!) to protect parts of the city and is getting pushback from people like "Hrmm, but MAH PROPERTY VALUE! MAH OCEAN VIEW!" Like you're going to have a great fucking ocean view when the ocean is in your living room, I suppose, but it seems bad to me.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:49 AM on July 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
Beats using a bidet as a personal airconditioner while a heat-dome incinerates your neighbors.If nobody objects, I'm going to imagine this read in the voice of William S. Burroughs.
posted by eotvos at 9:42 AM on July 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
« Older A stick, a stone / It's the end of the road | I'm going to go over the engineering concept you... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Every time you experience extreme weather caused by climate change, it was caused by not by negligence, but outright greed and avarice.
Fines and jail time are not enough for what they have taken from all of us.
They have literally taken the future of a livable planet from the entire species. The planet our children live on will not be the planet we grew up on, and it may not be our children that survive to live on that planet. It will mostly be the children of the rich, who seem to have decided they're just going to let all the poors die so they can stop worrying about needing to change anything, just hoping to weed out enough humans to reduce the carbon output.
The fact that the entire company isn't facing the death penalty and all assets being liquidated and given to the world shows how much of a fucking travesty the world is, and it also shows that maybe we fucking deserve the end we're heading for if we're completely incapable of holding people like this accountable.
Maybe Skynet was right.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:34 AM on July 1, 2021 [69 favorites]