It’s worth mentioning here that history is very clear that petro cartels are not above the “any means necessary” methodology, having a track record of fomenting wars, destruction of villages, wanton environmental destruction, and similar tactics in the pursuit of profit.
(See Ogoni nine, Ecuador vs Chevron, Chevron in Nigeria in general)
The oil cartels themselves have chosen to operate outside the social contract whenever it suits their needs. I see no reason they should be afforded the comforts of a contract they themselves have actively rejected.
It’s ironic you call for making low-level employees of oil companies “pariahs” when you comment about flying private planes as a hobby.
The fact is, oil companies act just as any other corporation does in a capitalist society. They’re fulfilling a demand that society is asking for. It’s the responsibility of governments (and the people they serve) to enact legislation to enforce climate goals.
Aviation isn’t always as extravagant as you may have been led to believe. Of course, private jets, turbine helicopters and similar toys of the .01% tend to be obscenely consumptive of planetary resources for the utility extracted by society at large, but in some cases even those can make sense (aero ambulances etc).
My plane gets about 23 miles to the gallon, and produces far, far less carbon than other ways of getting to where I take it (boat or snow machines being the other motorised options).
Plus, at 23mpg , weighing 870lbs empty and having been made in 1946, having flown around a million miles, and not using any highway infrastructure, I’d be surprised if it’s overall carbon footprint per mile wasn’t much, much smaller than a modern electric or hybrid car. Certainly it’s other environmental impact is negligible in comparison.
Some planes (mostly experimental category) can get better than 30mpg while flying over 140mph.
Flying doesn’t have to be wasteful, and the infrastructure impacts are tiny when you operate from grass or gravel airstrips.
As for the responsibility of society to prevent people from doing great harm, I agree with you there 100 percent. That doesn’t mean we should treat employees of Academi or Wagner with the same moral regard as employees of the local sanitation company, even though they are all allowed to exist under the laws of society.
There are activities, while legal, that a person should reasonably choose not to participate in, and if they do it speaks volumes about their moral character and courage of conviction.
I’m saying to judge people on their actions, and participation in an industry that has chosen, in the face of better options, to continue to betray the best interests of the species is questionable at best.
I say this as a person who has worked on the oilfields in Alaska and chose to do something different.
> participation in an industry that has chosen… to betray the best interests of the species is questionable at best
In participating in the oil industry, I’ve found opportunities for climate advocacy that far exceed the difference an average person can make outside the industry. What can you do outside? Buy a hybrid vehicle? Donate to Greenpeace?
I’ve been able to work on improving tracking of emissions. I’ve improved the accuracy of regulatory filings. I’ve advocated internally for low-emissions infrastructure improvements like tankless facilities.
You should want pro-environment people working in the oil industry.
If you are truly making a difference from the inside, I applaud your efforts.
I am skeptical however that you find yourself in a position to move the needle in any meaningful way.
When your employer sells a product you know causes lasting, multigenerational harm and they fail to at least lobby for solutions that might change the incentive structure so that they could do so responsibly and still make a profit, you might be working for the bad guys.
You should examine closely if your positive actions are greater than the harm that is being done by your participation.
It quickly gets murky, , participating in a fundamentally unethical process under the pretence of making it less bad in a small way.
If no one participated under the current methodology, the problem would be solved. Of course that will not happen, but still “if I don’t do it somebody will anyway” is an extremely hollow justification for compromising one’s ethics.
If we could actually do that, it would be exactly what I am suggesting. (Punitive taxation, since the tax would necessarily be more than the product value to offset current capture costs, so more than 100% taxation)
The CO2 emitted from the use of a barrel of oil is about .43 tonnes per barrel. The capture cost is around 200 dollars per ton, so the tax would be about $86/bbl.
Economies of scale would probably bring the price down, and petro companies would theoretically be incentivised to pour money into that industry, as long as it was allowed for them to verifiably sequester carbon to offset their tax liability.
It would fundamentally change the relationship of these companies to humanity overnight. But I don’t see that happening so far, unfortunately.
A Carbon tax will never price externalities fairly, because we don’t have a world government, and therefore any country can simply opt out of the climate tax or lie about complying with it.
Or, hear me out, we could legislate a carbon tax that prices the externalities fairly.