3 ms·

Easily solved -- let's all stop using petrochemicals of all kinds.

by lutusp 11y ago

jonknee 11y ago
That would devastate the global economy.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  There's no economy on a dead planet
  - AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
    The planet's not going to die from an increase in CO2. We might, but the planet will be fine.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Then there is a massive problem with the global economy. Perhaps we should be trying to find ways of moving away from petroleum as a fuel?
- cryptoz 11y ago
  Using petrochemicals has already devastated the global economy. We will spend trillions to attempt to fix the damage that has already been caused, when exactly $0 is what we should have to spend. We are causing a mass extinction event on the planet and will never be able to undo all the physical damage done. We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is wasted because it could have been used to move forward sustainably rather than make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of most life on Earth.
  - pitchka 11y ago
    Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones, habitat destruction, extinction of species and deforestation. It all comes down to human greed, complacency and conveniency. We all like flesh, we all like speedy travel. If we sought for the long-term we would reduce or abolish the use completely, on our own.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    Your basic premise is not terribly convincing. The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed. I understand how difficult it is to hate people who have things (your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling) and also want to express that hatred in a morally defensible way, but I don't think hyperbolic lies are as useful as you want them to be.
    - cryptoz 11y ago
      > The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. Many species on Earth are indeed in very serious danger of extinction due to human-caused climate change. Here is a paper in Nature discussing this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14712274 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14712274 > The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed. I disagree with this. We could have industrialized and gained those measurable advantages without causing all of this destruction. That's what this HN link is about: why did we do this? Partly because the rich and wealthy people controlled the public's understanding of the risks in a way that would keep their money flowing at the detriment of our health. > your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling How is this unrelated? The pursuit of wealth and the greed of the oil executives is directly related to this disaster. I do not "hate people that have things". I have lots of things. I do, however, hate people who are so greedy as to pollute our planet and cause runaway global greenhouse effects purely for their own gain.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    > We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is wasted because it could have been used to move forward sustainably rather than make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of most life on Earth. You and I wouldn't be here if it weren't for petrochemicals. It didn't just make a few people rich, it made modern life possible.
    - tremon 11y ago
      It might have been done without making a few people obscenely rich, though. That could have had the added benefit of less tooth-and-nail resistance.
roschdal 11y ago
Multiple renewable energy sources in combination, like solar and wind are a viable alternative. Also bringing down the Oil cartel OPEC, and having real market prices on oil would make the alternatives more viable.
- sremani 11y ago
  lets start with basics shall we, how do you produce steel with out "coke"?

Easily solved -- let's all stop using petrochemicals of all kinds.

by lutusp 11y ago

Easily solved -- let's all stop using petrochemicals of all kinds.

jonknee 11y ago

That would devastate the global economy.

beatpanda 11y ago
There's no economy on a dead planet
- AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
  The planet's not going to die from an increase in CO2. We might, but the planet will be fine.
chris_wot 11y ago
Then there is a massive problem with the global economy. Perhaps we should be trying to find ways of moving away from petroleum as a fuel?
cryptoz 11y ago
Using petrochemicals has already devastated the global economy. We will spend trillions to attempt to fix the damage that has already been caused, when exactly $0 is what we should have to spend. We are causing a mass extinction event on the planet and will never be able to undo all the physical damage done. We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is wasted because it could have been used to move forward sustainably rather than make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of most life on Earth.
- pitchka 11y ago
  Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones, habitat destruction, extinction of species and deforestation. It all comes down to human greed, complacency and conveniency. We all like flesh, we all like speedy travel. If we sought for the long-term we would reduce or abolish the use completely, on our own.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  Your basic premise is not terribly convincing. The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed. I understand how difficult it is to hate people who have things (your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling) and also want to express that hatred in a morally defensible way, but I don't think hyperbolic lies are as useful as you want them to be.
  - cryptoz 11y ago
    > The earth, and humanity, are in no serious danger of collapse. Many species on Earth are indeed in very serious danger of extinction due to human-caused climate change. Here is a paper in Nature discussing this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14712274 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14712274 > The measurable advantages our species has because of our industrialization seem far more tangible and have far more weight than your emotions, no matter how stridently expressed. I disagree with this. We could have industrialized and gained those measurable advantages without causing all of this destruction. That's what this HN link is about: why did we do this? Partly because the rich and wealthy people controlled the public's understanding of the risks in a way that would keep their money flowing at the detriment of our health. > your unrelated parting shot at the "obscenely rich" is rather telling How is this unrelated? The pursuit of wealth and the greed of the oil executives is directly related to this disaster. I do not "hate people that have things". I have lots of things. I do, however, hate people who are so greedy as to pollute our planet and cause runaway global greenhouse effects purely for their own gain.
- jonknee 11y ago
  > We will spend a huge amount of the world's money, resources and time to do our best to fix it, and all that is wasted because it could have been used to move forward sustainably rather than make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of most life on Earth. You and I wouldn't be here if it weren't for petrochemicals. It didn't just make a few people rich, it made modern life possible.
  - tremon 11y ago
    It might have been done without making a few people obscenely rich, though. That could have had the added benefit of less tooth-and-nail resistance.

roschdal 11y ago

Multiple renewable energy sources in combination, like solar and wind are a viable alternative. Also bringing down the Oil cartel OPEC, and having real market prices on oil would make the alternatives more viable.

sremani 11y ago
lets start with basics shall we, how do you produce steel with out "coke"?