Sorry but I just don't think you and Mathgod / others are accurately capturing things here. I also am not even sure what exactly is being debated so why don't we make clear what issues are at stake. I am further not saying you're wrong or that lobbying efforts have not happened nor am I debating the effectiveness of them in steering political agenda. However I definitely take issue with oil company lobbyists having some kind of material impact on consumer demand. No. Just no.
Of course global energy demand is high and will get higher. We understand that. The issue being debated is why humanity is still so far away from transitioning its power sources away from fossil fuels and toward clean alternatives.
You don't think that consumers wanted increased fuel efficiency? That was literally the first thing I asked the dealer about when I purchased my first car. Not just for environmental reasons, but because I was broke and wanted cheaper driving. There's always been more fuel efficient vehicles available. People didn't drive them because they didn't think it was cool.
No, I don't think fuel efficiency is a huge driver of consumer behavior in the aggregate, particularly in periods of low fuel prices. 5 of the top 10 selling vehicles in the US are trucks and 3 of the other 5 are SUVs. Much like safety improvements (which often make vehicles uglier and less cool looking), it's something that needs to be legislated, which is what every other peer jurisdiction did through the '80s, '90s, and '00s while North America didn't.
Of course global energy demand is high and will get higher. We understand that. The issue being debated is why humanity is still so far away from transitioning its power sources away from fossil fuels and toward clean alternatives.
Mainly because there's never been an energy transition. Humanity still burns a lot of wood and other other biomass, despite coal surpassing it more than 100 years ago.
Major new useful energy sources don't replace previous useful energy sources, they add to it.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Mainly because there's never been an energy transition. Humanity still burns a lot of wood and other other biomass, despite coal surpassing it more than 100 years ago.
Major new useful energy sources don't replace previous useful energy sources, they add to it.
But this time there must be a transition. The stakes are simply too high for there not to be.
Does that gas consumption per capita take into account that North America is a vastly larger and more spread out land mass than Europe or Japan?
For fun, I looked up your car on fueleconomy.gov. It gets virtually the same mpg and emissions rating as my new f150. I'd call that a pretty large improvement in fuel-efficiency and emissions standards over the last 15 years.
The federal government took its first formal step to regulate global warming pollution on Thursday by issuing final rules for greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles and light trucks.
The move ends a 30-year battle between regulators and automakers but sets the stage for what may be a bigger fight over climate-altering emissions from stationary sources like power plants, steel mills and refineries.
The new tailpipe rules, jointly written by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, set emissions and mileage standards that would translate to a combined fuel economy average for new vehicles of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Most drivers will see lower mileage figures in actual driving.
The rules are expected to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases about 30 percent from 2012 to 2016.
Officials said the program would save the owner of an average 2016 car about $3,000 in fuel over the life of the vehicle and eliminate emissions of nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gases over the lives of all regulated vehicles.
Mainly because there's never been an energy transition. Humanity still burns a lot of wood and other other biomass, despite coal surpassing it more than 100 years ago.
Major new useful energy sources don't replace previous useful energy sources, they add to it.
Coal usage appears to have peaked and is declining. It is well on its way out in Europe and North America.
Of course global energy demand is high and will get higher. We understand that. The issue being debated is why humanity is still so far away from transitioning its power sources away from fossil fuels and toward clean alternatives.
Because of population growth. More people = more energy demand.
You're asking new expensive energy technology to overcome global energy demand while at the same time being accelerated at an unprecedented adoption rate of literally no other technology in history. It's the way we have created our global economies, our global societies, and humanities way of life.
Not because Exxon is lobbying to not change gasoline consumption through US policy. Don't you see how myopic that is in the grand scheme of the problem?
Coal usage appears to have peaked and is declining. It is well on its way out in Europe and North America.
But it may be (somewhat) coming back in the West due to disruptions in the natural gas market and coal remains the key source of electricity generation for China and India who together account for 5/8th of world consumption. New IEA estimates now say it's likely to set a new record this year.
Coal usage appears to have peaked and is declining. It is well on its way out in Europe and North America.
Not true, coal usage is trending back up and many expect it to be higher this year as a result of the European energy crisis. France had to turn a bunch of coal generators back on.
Because of population growth. More people = more energy demand.
You're asking new expensive energy technology to overcome global energy demand while at the same time being accelerated at an unprecedented adoption rate of literally no other technology in history. It's the way we have created our global economies, our global societies, and humanities way of life.
Not because Exxon is lobbying to not change gasoline consumption through US policy. Don't you see how myopic that is in the grand scheme of the problem?
If the timeline of the transition had begun 10-15 years sooner than it did, the undertaking would have been much more manageable. Instead it's going to be perhaps the hardest challenge humanity has ever taken on, yet it must be taken on.
For fun, I looked up your car on fueleconomy.gov. It gets virtually the same mpg and emissions rating as my new f150. I'd call that a pretty large improvement in fuel-efficiency and emissions standards over the last 15 years.
Huh? I get about 6L/100km in my car (about 38-40 mpg). Even the most efficient F-150 uses twice that. Look at real-world data for the VW and the F-150
And improvements in efficiency just back up my point. Once the government actually started to do something about it in the late '00s, the F-150's fuel usage dropped by almost 20% in a few years after being more or less the static for the prior 20 years.
Global way of life has to change. We cant all get to live jet setting lives of luxury where we can drive an f150 down the street to buy groceries every other day and consume fresh vegetables from the other side of the planet, theres too large a cost to the only place in the universe we have found so far that can support human life
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stone hands For This Useful Post:
If the timeline of the transition had begun 10-15 years sooner than it did, the undertaking would have been much more manageable. Instead it's going to be perhaps the hardest challenge humanity has ever taken on, yet it must be taken on.
Global way of life has to change. We cant all get to live jet setting lives of luxury where we can drive an f150 down the street to buy groceries every other day and consume fresh vegetables from the other side of the planet, theres too large a cost to the only place in the universe we have found so far that can support human life
The only way we see this is to make those things so prohibitively expensive to the general population that demand goes down. That means very expensive gasoline and jet fuel. Oh wait - that's already happening you say? How are people adjusting to not being able to fill their cars up, being able to fly or afford their avocado toast? Not well? Wow, that is really surprising. Its as if everyone expects a high quality of life and to be able to access all of those things in the western world... Odd...
The only way we see this is to make those things so prohibitively expensive to the general population that demand goes down. That means very expensive gasoline and jet fuel. Oh wait - that's already happening you say? How are people adjusting to not being able to fill their cars up, being able to fly or afford their avocado toast? Not well? Wow, that is really surprising. Its as if everyone expects a high quality of life and to be able to access all of those things in the western world... Odd...
This is what I'm saying. We've become too accustomed to this level of convenience. The luxuries of the modern world are a prison and the sooner people realize it the better. The bandaid has to get ripped off at some point
Huh? I get about 6L/100km in my car (about 38-40 mpg). Even the most efficient F-150 uses twice that. Look at real-world data for the VW and the F-150
And improvements in efficiency just back up my point. Once the government actually started to do something about it in the late '00s, the F-150's fuel usage dropped by almost 20% in a few years after being more or less the static for the prior 20 years.
You don't think that had anything to do with new technology? Specifically new computers becoming available that could control the output of cars and increase their efficiency. Cars use computers to variably control gasoline input and combustion, technologies that simply weren't available until recently. In fact, the driving experience between a new car and one from the late 90s is totally different.
Anyways, no one is disagreeing that oil companies didn't play a role, it's just the extent of that role. You talk about it like we would have all woken up 20 years earlier and there'd be no CO2 output by now, but for the oil companies.
In reality, it's people's choices and lifestyles that are the bigger drivers of climate change. Oil companies aren't stopping anyone from buying local and riding the bus.
Edit: to add to my point. Politicians don't want to be the ones to make unpopular decisions. So they have a tendency to wait until technology is available to solve a problem before legislating against any such problems. In the case of fuel efficiency this is more or less exactly what happened. Politicians have known that air pollution was a major problem for decades. In this case they regulated efficiency requirements that were likely already about to occur naturally. Politicians aren't really acting on this even now.
Oil companies aren't stopping anyone from buying local and riding the bus.
It's not that simple. Collective problems can't be solved solely through changes in decisions made by individuals. Here's a video that talks about that in more detail:
Quote:
Edit: to add to my point. Politicians don't want to be the ones to make unpopular decisions. So they have a tendency to wait until technology is available to solve a problem before legislating against any such problems. In the case of fuel efficiency this is more or less exactly what happened. Politicians have known that air pollution was a major problem for decades. In this case they regulated efficiency requirements that were likely already about to occur naturally. Politicians aren't really acting on this even now.
Well exactly. Politicians generally don't do things that go against the beliefs/ideologies of their voters. What do you think the effect of climate change denial efforts has been on the beliefs/ideologies of voters over the past half century?
It's not that simple. Collective problems can't be solved solely through changes in decisions made by individuals. Here's a video that talks about that in more detail:
Well exactly. Politicians generally don't do things that go against the beliefs/ideologies of their voters. What do you think the effect of climate change denial efforts has been on the beliefs/ideologies of voters over the past half century?
Every single industry has a lobby group - its the system that was designed and companies operate within that system. Lobbying governments in order to make business more friendly happens literally across everything from agriculture, to mining, to alcohol and pharmaceuticals.
The issue people have is everyone is seemingly trying to blame oil and gas for all of their environmental problems - fata that. There is plenty of blame to go around, but you don't seem nearly as much being thrown at clothing manufacturers who are huge culprits, the meat industry, or mining companies. Ask yourself why?
Big energy, big food, big guns, big pharma, etc, etc....all of them lobby the government and take advantage of all the loopholes they can find to benefit their industry.
And all of them have done damage in a variety of ways, but can you honestly sit here and blame big food for the reason you someone is obese? That they didn't know that eating super processed foods high in sugar & simple carbs was going to create a big problem?
Global way of life has to change. We cant all get to live jet setting lives of luxury where we can drive an f150 down the street to buy groceries every other day and consume fresh vegetables from the other side of the planet, theres too large a cost to the only place in the universe we have found so far that can support human life
Don't forget all the rich and powerful flying their private jets everywhere while telling us all how we should 'consume less', and be more minimalist.
Nothing grates me like middle class folk telling other middle class folk they should stop living such a luxurious life.
