11 ms·

In a theoretical world, finding potential resources is always good. You have the option to extract from it, or ban extraction from it -- which is no worse than

In a theoretical world, finding potential resources is always good. You have the option to extract from it, or ban extraction from it -- which is no worse than not finding it in the first place. Put another way, shouldn't news of any new option be good? It's interesting then that there's such negativity, or at least ambiguity, in this thread. Is it because we've grown more pessimistic at the irresponsibility of society?

guelo 10y ago
The option to ban extraction is not on the table at all. Wells start pumping immediately after a discovery is made. The election of Trump is a dawning realization to many of us that our civilization is incapable of stopping it's acceleration as we head over the climate change cliff.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
It's interesting, but it's not surprising. There's a hive-mind on HN when it comes to anything associated with oil. The most ludicrous, unscientific, repeatedly debunked theories about environmental damage from fracking are uncritically believed, conspiracy theories about "oil barons" and Mideast wars are the order of the day, and of course you can't go five minutes without someone happily reminding us all that soon God, er, global warming will punish us sinners.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  "The world is ending, give us money." I don't know if Christianity started it, but at least since Malthus others have figured out it's a good scam. I am wondering if anyone will mention "peak oil" here too :)
  - guelo 10y ago
    People concerned about climate change are not asking for money.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any extra income from climate taxes on fuel are distributed back to the population in the form of tax breaks or cheaper train tickets :-/
      - ori_b 10y ago
        If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.
        briandear 10y ago
        There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
        inimino 10y ago
        So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
        nec4b 10y ago
        Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
- joelthelion 10y ago
  The world is on the verge of disastrous climate change. This fact is well established. Why exactly are we supposed to rejoice at the news of more fossil fuel reserves?
  - clackanon 10y ago
    You believe in popular AGW theory. Not everyone does. Not everyone takes it as fact that global warming is what folks say it is. There's enough spin and inconsistency in the scientific community that not even they agree on it. Let's assume for sake of discussion that warming is happening. Okay. I'll do my best to live responsibly. Am I going to buy in to all the Chicken Little melodrama? Nope. Also, I thinking there's enough good momentum towards use of alt energy resources, that we're going the right direction.
    - yread 10y ago
      You made a comment on HACKER news to "discuss" how scientific community doesn't agree on AGW?
      - madaxe_again 10y ago
        This is hacker news. Here, climate change is a conspiracy theory, automation will never destroy any jobs or require any change in how we live, and unregulated capitalism is the solution to everything. Oh, and we're pretty stoked about our new NRX, oh, sorry, alt-right president! What, you thought this community was better? That smart people are smart? Sorry - smart people are stupid too - their mistakes are just bigger. Who do you think designed the nazi war machine, idiots? Was Speer a dullard? No. intelligent people believe just as much stupid crap as the next man. They choose to ignore their education in favour of emotion. Yarr, down she goes. Creatures which dwell under rocks dislike the light.
    - goodcanadian 10y ago
      There's enough spin and inconsistency in the scientific community that not even they agree on it. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. Climate change is happening now. The debate is about the details: how much warming there will be, how fast, and what the effects will be. This is a normal part of science, and how it's supposed to work. Regardless of the details, at this point, it is pretty clear by now that we are screwed even if we aren't quite sure how badly. As far as I can tell, the only spin comes from idiot politicians invested in the status quo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- edem 10y ago
  Care to elaborate about debunked theories? I'd like to see proof/refutation about those theories. The main problem is not necessarily how you extract it but how you use it. If you burn it you contribute to global warming. If you burn the forest which was present before the extraction you also contribute to global warming.
inimino 10y ago
In a theoretical world, rational actors would never take the dominated option. We don't live in that world. In our world, the one making the choice may not be the one adversely affected. There may be disagreement about the best action. There may be unavoidable risks. Examples: thermonuclear war, global warming, predatory lending, biological weapons... Consider a hypothetical doomsday device that could be developed in a garage. The "all options are a net good" principle is just not a very useful one in practice. We've always been pessimistic about human nature. Advancing technology raises the stakes.

guelo 10y ago

The option to ban extraction is not on the table at all. Wells start pumping immediately after a discovery is made. The election of Trump is a dawning realization to many of us that our civilization is incapable of stopping it's acceleration as we head over the climate change cliff.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

It's interesting, but it's not surprising. There's a hive-mind on HN when it comes to anything associated with oil. The most ludicrous, unscientific, repeatedly debunked theories about environmental damage from fracking are uncritically believed, conspiracy theories about "oil barons" and Mideast wars are the order of the day, and of course you can't go five minutes without someone happily reminding us all that soon God, er, global warming will punish us sinners.

mdpopescu 10y ago
"The world is ending, give us money." I don't know if Christianity started it, but at least since Malthus others have figured out it's a good scam. I am wondering if anyone will mention "peak oil" here too :)
- guelo 10y ago
  People concerned about climate change are not asking for money.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Around here it seems they always are: Just now goverment is about to be thrown because (at least from my somewhat biased understanding) they insist that any extra income from climate taxes on fuel are distributed back to the population in the form of tax breaks or cheaper train tickets :-/
    - ori_b 10y ago
      If there was a way to cut the burning of fossil fuels dramatically that didn't involve taxing it, or being too heavy handed dictating what to put on the markets, I'd be happy to see it put into action. In fact, I'd prefer it, because tax revenue from environmental damage gives government a perverse incentive to allow companies to continue with environmental damage. Until then, the money coming in from taxation is going to be used somewhere, and it seems a shame to use it somewhere that doesn't benefit anyone.
      - briandear 10y ago
        There is a way: it's called the free market. We didn't tax horses to force the innovation of cars and airplanes. Taxation didn't lead to telephones and computers. When someone develops cheap, plentiful, clean energy at scale, oil will be made redundant. The free market is all about innovation and achieving a competitive advantage.
        inimino 10y ago
        So how does the free market solve the problem of incentivizing people to not destroy the commons? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
        nec4b 10y ago
        Maybe you should check the environment of former socialist republics (e.g. Soviet Union), since you somehow believe that collectivist systems take better care of the commons.
joelthelion 10y ago
The world is on the verge of disastrous climate change. This fact is well established. Why exactly are we supposed to rejoice at the news of more fossil fuel reserves?
- clackanon 10y ago
  You believe in popular AGW theory. Not everyone does. Not everyone takes it as fact that global warming is what folks say it is. There's enough spin and inconsistency in the scientific community that not even they agree on it. Let's assume for sake of discussion that warming is happening. Okay. I'll do my best to live responsibly. Am I going to buy in to all the Chicken Little melodrama? Nope. Also, I thinking there's enough good momentum towards use of alt energy resources, that we're going the right direction.
  - yread 10y ago
    You made a comment on HACKER news to "discuss" how scientific community doesn't agree on AGW?
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      This is hacker news. Here, climate change is a conspiracy theory, automation will never destroy any jobs or require any change in how we live, and unregulated capitalism is the solution to everything. Oh, and we're pretty stoked about our new NRX, oh, sorry, alt-right president! What, you thought this community was better? That smart people are smart? Sorry - smart people are stupid too - their mistakes are just bigger. Who do you think designed the nazi war machine, idiots? Was Speer a dullard? No. intelligent people believe just as much stupid crap as the next man. They choose to ignore their education in favour of emotion. Yarr, down she goes. Creatures which dwell under rocks dislike the light.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    There's enough spin and inconsistency in the scientific community that not even they agree on it. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. Climate change is happening now. The debate is about the details: how much warming there will be, how fast, and what the effects will be. This is a normal part of science, and how it's supposed to work. Regardless of the details, at this point, it is pretty clear by now that we are screwed even if we aren't quite sure how badly. As far as I can tell, the only spin comes from idiot politicians invested in the status quo.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
edem 10y ago
Care to elaborate about debunked theories? I'd like to see proof/refutation about those theories. The main problem is not necessarily how you extract it but how you use it. If you burn it you contribute to global warming. If you burn the forest which was present before the extraction you also contribute to global warming.

inimino 10y ago

In a theoretical world, rational actors would never take the dominated option. We don't live in that world. In our world, the one making the choice may not be the one adversely affected. There may be disagreement about the best action. There may be unavoidable risks. Examples: thermonuclear war, global warming, predatory lending, biological weapons... Consider a hypothetical doomsday device that could be developed in a garage. The "all options are a net good" principle is just not a very useful one in practice. We've always been pessimistic about human nature. Advancing technology raises the stakes.