4 ms·

Unless unprecedented carbon capture systems are discovered petrocarbon-based energy systems are not defensible in the medium to long term regardless of what fla

Unless unprecedented carbon capture systems are discovered petrocarbon-based energy systems are not defensible in the medium to long term regardless of what flavor of market fuckery you try to bring to bear. The greenhouse effect isn't concerned with or impacted by geopolitics.

ryao 10y ago
How do you propose vehicles operate without a carbon based fuel? Natural gas is cheaper at the low end for automotive transportation than electricity and it is the only feasible option for jet engines that does not involve oil. Let's not forget commercial shipping, which cannot operate on solar panels due to low surface area. I consider eliminating demand for oil to reduce funding of terrorist attacks to be a higher priority than eliminating carbon based transportation. If you do not, then there is always production of natural gas from biomass, which makes natural gas carbon neutral: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas For what it is worth, natural gas has a higher energy density per unit mass than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Switching to it in transportation actually reduces energy requirements such that reductions in carbon dioxide output would be higher than the theoretical numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Global atmospheric temperatures are an existential threat. International terrorism is not. It might be worthwhile to check the assumption that halting warming will be possible while maintaining all of the transportation infrastructure we've grown accustomed to over the last 102 years. What sounds better to you, a working ecosystem or cheap airfare?
  - ryao 10y ago
    I will take the cheap airfare. I think you will find most of the world population would take the lower air fare too, regardless of what you say. You can see your goals achieved with natural gas thanks to biomass conversion methods, but do not expect everyone to be as enthusiastic about eliminating CO2 emissions as you are. The most you will get is willingness to make things renewable for security or financial reasons. Natural gas can both reduce the cost of air travel, which definitely can get people on-board and improve security by cutting demand for oil, which ought to matter to my fellow New Yorkers.
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      "I will take the cheap airfare." Let's hope technology pulls of a miracle before this flavor of myopic insanity destroys the planet. You do realize you just said that you'd rather be able to affordably fly than have a working biosphere, right? What were you planning on eating for the mid-flight snack? An arm rest?
      - ryao 10y ago
        The planet used to be warmer 600 years ago. Nature adapted to the lower temperatures. If temperatures rise, it will adapt to the higher temperatures, provided that they even happen. The projections that claim temperature rises do not consider the inevitability of renewable energy. Renewable prices will drop over time while fossil fuel prices will increase over time. Eventually, fossil fuels will be more expensive and renewables will take over. Even if the most severe predictions on the internet are true, there is no need to eliminate he use of carbon based fuels. Speeding up the transition to renewable carbon based fuel production would be more than sufficient.
        grzm 10y ago
        I do not believe the projections because they do not consider the inevitability of renewable energy. There might be some projections that don't take this into account (though I'm not aware of any). However, many consider "commitment", or the long term effects of what has already been done (for example, the CO₂ that's already been produced). I found the following article "What would happen to the climate if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today?"[0] from 2014 useful in describing the situation with links to additional resources: [0]: https://theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today-35011 https://theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate... For two examples of projections taking the effects of differences in CO₂ emissions (which serve as an effective proxy for fossil fuel usage), here are two from resources linked from that article: Charts showing different projections of relative CO₂ concentrations based on varying changes in CO₂ emissions[1] [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3... Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century.[2] [2]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5716/1769 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5716/1769 Speeding up the transition to renewable carbon based fuel production would be more than sufficient. Do you have references which support this claim? I'd be interested in reading about them if you do. Statements like this seem to sometimes be based on the assumption that market forces will be able to fix climate change issues, though I don't know whether you hold this position. The relationship between market forces and effects on climate change are not tightly coupled. The rate at which renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels is not directly proportional (inversely or otherwise) to atmospheric CO₂ concentration or global albedo or temperature or sea level. From what we understand of human psychology, we don't intuitively grasp concepts on such a grossly non-human scale (both in time and space) such as climate change, just as quantum mechanics or relativistic physics can throw us for a loop. I should think it's much more difficult for the market as a whole to be efficient in reacting to effects on this scale as they are so much further removed from human intuition.

ryao 10y ago

How do you propose vehicles operate without a carbon based fuel? Natural gas is cheaper at the low end for automotive transportation than electricity and it is the only feasible option for jet engines that does not involve oil. Let's not forget commercial shipping, which cannot operate on solar panels due to low surface area. I consider eliminating demand for oil to reduce funding of terrorist attacks to be a higher priority than eliminating carbon based transportation. If you do not, then there is always production of natural gas from biomass, which makes natural gas carbon neutral: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas For what it is worth, natural gas has a higher energy density per unit mass than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Switching to it in transportation actually reduces energy requirements such that reductions in carbon dioxide output would be higher than the theoretical numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

knieveltech 10y ago
Global atmospheric temperatures are an existential threat. International terrorism is not. It might be worthwhile to check the assumption that halting warming will be possible while maintaining all of the transportation infrastructure we've grown accustomed to over the last 102 years. What sounds better to you, a working ecosystem or cheap airfare?
- ryao 10y ago
  I will take the cheap airfare. I think you will find most of the world population would take the lower air fare too, regardless of what you say. You can see your goals achieved with natural gas thanks to biomass conversion methods, but do not expect everyone to be as enthusiastic about eliminating CO2 emissions as you are. The most you will get is willingness to make things renewable for security or financial reasons. Natural gas can both reduce the cost of air travel, which definitely can get people on-board and improve security by cutting demand for oil, which ought to matter to my fellow New Yorkers.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    "I will take the cheap airfare." Let's hope technology pulls of a miracle before this flavor of myopic insanity destroys the planet. You do realize you just said that you'd rather be able to affordably fly than have a working biosphere, right? What were you planning on eating for the mid-flight snack? An arm rest?
    - ryao 10y ago
      The planet used to be warmer 600 years ago. Nature adapted to the lower temperatures. If temperatures rise, it will adapt to the higher temperatures, provided that they even happen. The projections that claim temperature rises do not consider the inevitability of renewable energy. Renewable prices will drop over time while fossil fuel prices will increase over time. Eventually, fossil fuels will be more expensive and renewables will take over. Even if the most severe predictions on the internet are true, there is no need to eliminate he use of carbon based fuels. Speeding up the transition to renewable carbon based fuel production would be more than sufficient.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I do not believe the projections because they do not consider the inevitability of renewable energy. There might be some projections that don't take this into account (though I'm not aware of any). However, many consider "commitment", or the long term effects of what has already been done (for example, the CO₂ that's already been produced). I found the following article "What would happen to the climate if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today?"[0] from 2014 useful in describing the situation with links to additional resources: [0]: https://theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today-35011 https://theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate... For two examples of projections taking the effects of differences in CO₂ emissions (which serve as an effective proxy for fossil fuel usage), here are two from resources linked from that article: Charts showing different projections of relative CO₂ concentrations based on varying changes in CO₂ emissions[1] [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3... Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century.[2] [2]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5716/1769 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5716/1769 Speeding up the transition to renewable carbon based fuel production would be more than sufficient. Do you have references which support this claim? I'd be interested in reading about them if you do. Statements like this seem to sometimes be based on the assumption that market forces will be able to fix climate change issues, though I don't know whether you hold this position. The relationship between market forces and effects on climate change are not tightly coupled. The rate at which renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels is not directly proportional (inversely or otherwise) to atmospheric CO₂ concentration or global albedo or temperature or sea level. From what we understand of human psychology, we don't intuitively grasp concepts on such a grossly non-human scale (both in time and space) such as climate change, just as quantum mechanics or relativistic physics can throw us for a loop. I should think it's much more difficult for the market as a whole to be efficient in reacting to effects on this scale as they are so much further removed from human intuition.