I don’t have citations to hand, but my impression from what I’ve read before is that the total amount of carbon emitted by early industry is relatively minor, and that the exponentially increasing curve of emissions puts the bulk of the total occurring relatively recently.
Which would put significant culpability on recent oil/gas/coal use, by people and companies that had the scientific understanding to “know better” if they were inclined to. But that in many cases they instead deliberately downplayed and ignored and spread misinformation, so as to continue extracting and selling lucrative fuel products.
Calling it an accident feels like it diffuses responsibility away from some genuine bad actors. Which seems to me to be a factual error, regardless of whether it’s a good communications or persuasion strategy.
I agree that separating out true causal responsibility (blame) from the most effective/persuasive messaging is a useful thing to do. I think, as a general rule, that blame is not a useful thing to do at a societal level; it seems effective in personal and intimate settings because responsibility in those contexts can be clear-cut and unambiguous. Broader applications just seem to make people angry with each other, without actually accomplishing any substantive change.
the exponentially increasing curve of emissions puts the bulk of the total occurring relatively recently.
I hadn’t really thought that through, and it seems obviously correct when you mention it. I’d bring up, however, that:
I have trouble believing that anyone was genuinely trying to ruin the planet, mustache-twirling villain style.
The process of industrialization started before anyone currently alive was born, and it’s that process, of which people/companies are a part, that is “responsible” for climate change, insofar as any singular cause can be ascertained. There are absolutely people/corporations that have enriched themselves at the planet/humanity’s expense, but they’re part of a system too, and if they hadn’t done it, others would have.
I don’t have citations to hand, but my impression from what I’ve read before is that the total amount of carbon emitted by early industry is relatively minor, and that the exponentially increasing curve of emissions puts the bulk of the total occurring relatively recently.
Which would put significant culpability on recent oil/gas/coal use, by people and companies that had the scientific understanding to “know better” if they were inclined to. But that in many cases they instead deliberately downplayed and ignored and spread misinformation, so as to continue extracting and selling lucrative fuel products.
Calling it an accident feels like it diffuses responsibility away from some genuine bad actors. Which seems to me to be a factual error, regardless of whether it’s a good communications or persuasion strategy.
I agree that separating out true causal responsibility (blame) from the most effective/persuasive messaging is a useful thing to do. I think, as a general rule, that blame is not a useful thing to do at a societal level; it seems effective in personal and intimate settings because responsibility in those contexts can be clear-cut and unambiguous. Broader applications just seem to make people angry with each other, without actually accomplishing any substantive change.
I hadn’t really thought that through, and it seems obviously correct when you mention it. I’d bring up, however, that:
I have trouble believing that anyone was genuinely trying to ruin the planet, mustache-twirling villain style.
The process of industrialization started before anyone currently alive was born, and it’s that process, of which people/companies are a part, that is “responsible” for climate change, insofar as any singular cause can be ascertained. There are absolutely people/corporations that have enriched themselves at the planet/humanity’s expense, but they’re part of a system too, and if they hadn’t done it, others would have.