[acdha]

Because those aren't unrelated: it'd be one thing if they just sold oil, but they're behind campaigns deceiving the public about the true cost of using it and encouraging additional consumption. People today are buying new trucks and SUVs which get worse mileage than the 1980s did in part because there's been this well-funded anti-science propaganda campaign and many efforts to hide the true costs.

Put more succinctly, they deserve blame because they chose lies when confronted with an inconvenient truth.

[nickersonm]

If oil companies have been campaigning specifically to deceive customers about the potential harms those customers may cause, then that should be what they are "held responsible" for. Trying to make them responsible for harms others caused using their products is rather orthogonal to that, and doesn't bolster arguments criticizing them.

Tangentially, while some vehicles presumably have worse mileage than a comparably-sized vehicle from the 1980s, fuel efficiency has significantly increased since 2005 (after a small decrease from 1985-2005) while supporting continuously increasing power and weight [0]:

In the two decades prior to 2004, technology innovation and market trends generally resulted in increased vehicle power and weight (due to increasing vehicle size and content) while average new vehicle fuel economy steadily decreased and CO2 emissions correspondingly increased. Since model year 2004, the combination of technology innovation and market trends have resulted in average new vehicle fuel economy increasing 32%, horsepower increasing 20%, and weight increasing 4%.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...

[acdha]

> Tangentially, while some vehicles presumably have worse mileage than a comparably-sized vehicle from the 1980s,

There's a challenge here: people have been encouraged to buy larger vehicles. A small car will have better mileage now but the kind of vehicle the average person is commuting to work in now is much larger than it was three decades ago. I would argue that this is in part due to the successful campaign which fossil fuel companies funded to reverse conservation wins of the late 70s & early 80s. It wasn't just them but they had a significant role in shaping the political and social discourse (e.g. promoting gas guzzling as a macho thing).

[nickersonm]

Thanks for your civil engagement on what is often a contentious topic.

While not a perfect representation of purchases, I believe the EPA chart (Fig. ES-3) I referred to shows the average of all for-sale models for a given year, so this should capture the increasing preference for larger vehicles. Indeed, the horsepower and curb weight are shown as significant increases, even while fuel efficiency is improving (≥2005). It looks to me like the average fuel efficiency passed the 1985 peak (presumably driven by the 1970s oil crises) around 2007.

Clearly two decades of decreasing efficiency was not ideal, but I posit it may be the 1985-2005 period which you are mostly remembering. Going by the chart there was a fast shift to smaller and 'weaker' cars for highly increased efficiency 1970-1975, after which there was a slow continuous increase of power and weight - first occasioning a slow but relatively small decline in efficiency (compared to the 1970-1975 increase), but then changing to increasing efficiency as that became a more important factor for consumers.

Relatedly, while I am certainly not the target audience for the kind of advertisements that may encourage people to purchase more oil-based products, I cannot recall seeing any automotive advertising that wasn't clearly produced by a specific vehicle manufacturer. It sounds like you are suggesting 2nd and 3rd tier advertising by fuel companies for reversing the 1970-1975 reduction in consumption, but I'm not familiar with that space - I would appreciate it if you could direct me to any resources you have about that.

[acdha]

> I cannot recall seeing any automotive advertising that wasn't clearly produced by a specific vehicle manufacturer.

You're right — what I was thinking about wasn't that the Exxon was running ads saying you should buy an F-350 for your grocery shopping but the more subtle long-term stuff: pouring millions of dollars into funding the people who say climate change is a hoax (meaning fewer people feel guilty about 10mpg), turning that into a litmus test for politicians so the same people in office are also receptive to continuing exemptions from pollution laws, etc. The blame is wider than them I think it's important to separate out unknowing mistakes from deliberate attempts to delay action after you know there's a problem.

There's also an interesting split here: until about a decade ago, the interests of the oil and car companies were perfectly aligned. Now that EVs are popular, however, that's diverging and I'm curious what the political realignment will look like — Ford won't be backing transit or high-density housing but they'd be totally cool running ads about how their latest Mustang can be powered by American wind farms.