7 ms·

Discontinue the use of single use plastic and internal combustion engines.

microcolonel 7y ago
You first. You can (sort of) accomplish this for yourself, and you get to benefit from the utility internal combustion provides the economy you're in, so it'll be easier than if the state imposed it. As for single use plastics, you're going to have to narrow that down. What about medical plastics? Food service gloves? Hazmat suits?
masonic 7y ago
...and every element of your personal consumption that relies on either.
- khawkins 7y ago
  Honestly, it's really tiresome dealing with fanatics who think we can meaningfully eliminate oil usage in the near future. It's nothing more than the delusional fantasy of extreme hypocrites. In a century I could imagine a 50-80% decrease in usage in the US, but by that time Africa and Asia will have doubled in population. Any efficiency gains are totally lost with an increase in population. Every added person will guarantee a life of consumption which requires the use of oil, especially in a nation which isn't anywhere close enough to replacing their infrastructure with "green" technologies.
ReptileMan 7y ago
Flintstones, meet the Flintstones There the modern stone age family From the town of Bedrock There a page right out of history Plastics and ICS are here for 2-3 decades at least. Like it or not.
throwGuardian 7y ago
This is no less frivolous than the person getting down voted for the Flintstones theme. If we're to make progress on climate change, more practical solutions than those a grade schooler can trivially dream of, need to be discussed. If we could cold turkey cut off single use plastic and IC engines without disrupting the economy and civilisation, we already would
campfireveteran 7y ago
Just like recycling bins, that's only the virtue-signaling parts of the story. It is vital to discontinue nearly all petrochem uses of fossil fuels and leave much of the rest of it in the ground. This implies: - massive expansions of renewables (doable since costs have dropped precipitously) - possibly temporary use of fission (replaced hopefully by fusion) - elimination of diesel-powered ships, replaced by electrical (battery) and/or nuclear fission (again hopefully replaced by fusion) - elimination of FF-powered air transport with electric-powered - derivation of reasonable amounts of polymers from recycled materials and plant sources - improved, efficient post-consumer recycling diverting a considerable fraction of the waste stream back into raw materials Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to spend on the order of what was spent on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on CCS to return GHGs to pre-industrial levels... if we don't do this, nothing else matters because we (and our progeny) will all be dead. We ought to examine: - ferrous ocean seeding of phytoplankton blooms - blooming the kelp over-proliferation between Mexico and Africa for harvest and subterranean/hadopelagic CCS And to be consistent, the top two other major sources of GHGs should be minimized: - meat agriculture - clinker production (Portland cement / concrete)
- swader999 7y ago
  The math to replace fossil fuels is staggering. Look at this analysis of what it would take to replace existing fossil fuel with net zero carbon alternatives by 2050 (11000 days from now). Here's the conclusions: So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this. source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#36b5a0a535f7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero... Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.

You first. You can (sort of) accomplish this for yourself, and you get to benefit from the utility internal combustion provides the economy you're in, so it'll be easier than if the state imposed it. As for single use plastics, you're going to have to narrow that down. What about medical plastics? Food service gloves? Hazmat suits?

masonic 7y ago

...and every element of your personal consumption that relies on either.

khawkins 7y ago
Honestly, it's really tiresome dealing with fanatics who think we can meaningfully eliminate oil usage in the near future. It's nothing more than the delusional fantasy of extreme hypocrites. In a century I could imagine a 50-80% decrease in usage in the US, but by that time Africa and Asia will have doubled in population. Any efficiency gains are totally lost with an increase in population. Every added person will guarantee a life of consumption which requires the use of oil, especially in a nation which isn't anywhere close enough to replacing their infrastructure with "green" technologies.

ReptileMan 7y ago

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones There the modern stone age family From the town of Bedrock There a page right out of history Plastics and ICS are here for 2-3 decades at least. Like it or not.

throwGuardian 7y ago

This is no less frivolous than the person getting down voted for the Flintstones theme. If we're to make progress on climate change, more practical solutions than those a grade schooler can trivially dream of, need to be discussed. If we could cold turkey cut off single use plastic and IC engines without disrupting the economy and civilisation, we already would

campfireveteran 7y ago

Just like recycling bins, that's only the virtue-signaling parts of the story. It is vital to discontinue nearly all petrochem uses of fossil fuels and leave much of the rest of it in the ground. This implies: - massive expansions of renewables (doable since costs have dropped precipitously) - possibly temporary use of fission (replaced hopefully by fusion) - elimination of diesel-powered ships, replaced by electrical (battery) and/or nuclear fission (again hopefully replaced by fusion) - elimination of FF-powered air transport with electric-powered - derivation of reasonable amounts of polymers from recycled materials and plant sources - improved, efficient post-consumer recycling diverting a considerable fraction of the waste stream back into raw materials Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to spend on the order of what was spent on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on CCS to return GHGs to pre-industrial levels... if we don't do this, nothing else matters because we (and our progeny) will all be dead. We ought to examine: - ferrous ocean seeding of phytoplankton blooms - blooming the kelp over-proliferation between Mexico and Africa for harvest and subterranean/hadopelagic CCS And to be consistent, the top two other major sources of GHGs should be minimized: - meat agriculture - clinker production (Portland cement / concrete)

swader999 7y ago
The math to replace fossil fuels is staggering. Look at this analysis of what it would take to replace existing fossil fuel with net zero carbon alternatives by 2050 (11000 days from now). Here's the conclusions: So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this. source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#36b5a0a535f7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero... Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.