5 ms·

No, ending the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is how we fix climate change. Anything else is just buying time.

growlist 7y ago
An honest question: if a technological solution were found that both solved climate change and allowed us to continue burning fossil fuels, would you accept it?
- earthtolazlo 7y ago
  Having your cake and eating it too sounds like a great option. It just doesn’t have any basis in reality.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    Parent as I read it isn't suggesting that having your cake and eating it too is possible, instead they're attempting to establish a dual-scale demarcation of viewpoints with one scale being "Prohibition or allowance of fossil fuels" and the other scale being "Fixes or does not fix climate change". This is useful because polling has discovered many US Republicans will actually vote for climate solutions _if_ they employ new technologies that would result in new industries.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      The people voting against environmental reforms are doing it because they don't want to reduce their quality of life. And since nothing comes close to the cost to energy density ratio of fossil fuels, there is no solution other than reducing energy usage and reducing quality of life. And so without convincing people they should reduce their quality of life for the benefit of future generations, nothing is going to happen.
      - natch 7y ago
        >The people voting against environmental reforms are doing it because they don't want to reduce their quality of life. No. They're doing it because of tribalism and ignorance. They perceive that by allowing progress on energy sustainability issues, they allow the enemy tribe a victory. And many of them don't care at all about sustainability because they believe the second coming is just around the corner. The ones who think it would reduce their quality of life are just being ignorant. They don't understand the possibilities. >And since nothing comes close to the cost to energy density ratio of fossil fuels... Well, it's not that simple. You can't just look at the energy density without looking at the context. Even dry wood comes close (within an order of magnitude) to fossil fuels. And ethanol is even better. But there are issues with both of these. That's the thing. You need to also account for the issues. And fossil fuels themselves also have issues, namely, the topic at hand, climate change. If you want the highest energy density, you would go with an H-bomb or a high energy laser. But you need to harness the energy in a context so being realistic about it, fossil fuels need to go. Just as we can't power our civilization sustainably with fusion bombs, we also can't do so with fossil fuels. The energy density of fossil fuel is around 40 Megajoules/liter, which is impressive (though not compared to an h-bomb at over 7,500,000 MJ/L), but when you put it in a car, the energy density of the whole system drops to 0.2 on the same scale. Not so great at all. Where things get interesting is if you take batteries, which are an order of magnitude worse energy density on their own compared to fossil fuels on their own, and you make them into an integral structural component of the automobile system, as Tesla has done. So now if you look at the entire system, batteries become much more competitive in context. Your tank of gasoline is not serving any structural or stability enhancing role in your ICE car. But a battery is, thus bringing benefits which on an ICE car have to incur extra weight. >there is no solution other than reducing energy usage and reducing quality of life Not true. We squander so much freely available solar energy by allowing it to heat tar-covered rooftops which could instead be collecting it as solar power. There is plenty of energy for our use. There is no need to reduce quality of life. People are already living this. The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed.
        lotsofpulp 7y ago
        >The ones who think it would reduce their quality of life are just being ignorant. They don't understand the possibilities. I'm not willing to give people that benefit of the doubt. Deep down, people are loss averse, and will tell themselves whatever about the second coming or make up conspiracies to do it. The real cause is people don't want to give up single family homes with garages and SUVs on quarter+ acre lots. People don't want to give up annual vacations to tropical destinations. > The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed. It's not evenly distributed because the costs aren't felt evenly. Fossil fuels are portable, they start on demand in a variety of weather or time of day, and they have all the infrastructure already setup to use them. They're good at what they do. But until the environmental costs aren't incorporated into the financial costs of fossil fuels, I don't see what would motivate people to move away from them.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Will they vote for the LFTR? They haven't so far.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      I suspect that unfortunately there is a mismatch between hypothetical polling and reality given the current outright hostility to solar and wind in spite of them contribuiting jobs and income in their regions. Farmers are renting land for turbines using fallow fields for solar panels and are facing bizzare objections when there are fewer externalities than the existing options.
  - growlist 7y ago
    > It just doesn’t have any basis in reality. So you're effectively denying the possibility? I'd say that's a pretty gargantuan assumption to make.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - fallingfrog 7y ago
      It’s very, very, very unlikely that we’ll find a magic bullet solution at this stage. Removing co2 from the atmosphere requires some external energy source, for one thing.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Well, if there's anything that the environmentalists hate more than petroleum, it is nuclear power. So there's the sticky wicket. We have the solution in hand, but no will to embrace it.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  That would depend on the risks and the side effects, but assuming there was some magic bullet that would restore the atmosphere to a stable state and allow the burning of unlimited fossil fuels- yes, in a heartbeat.
ebiester 7y ago
All of these are "not only but also" solutions. One thing we need to do is end the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, but that only addresses one type of pollution, and it only gets us so far if the alternative doesn't pollute in some way. (For example, solar and the waste that it generates.) We need to solve the whole ecosystem issue.
- growlist 7y ago
  > We need to solve the whole ecosystem issue. Which unless we come up with some pretty smart measures is inevitably going to involve poorer lifestyles for most in the developed world, in effect (and perhaps this explains the keeness on the left for environmental issues) moving us to a more socialist model, wherein hard work offers far less in terms of monetary reward than at present.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    What does it profit a man to gain monetary reward if he loses his sustaining ecosystem?
    - growlist 7y ago
      Well quite. But that doesn't change the fact that enforcing poorer lifestyles will inevitably affect the incentive to work hard. This website is in no small part about startups and getting rich, isn't it? Personally, I'm forced to compete because I live in a stupidly overpriced part of the world in terms of housing (SE UK) but apart from a nice house I need very little to support my ego apart from my dog and family, so I think I'd cope with the poorer lifestyle far better than many people I see around me, seeming to have built their self-worth around posessions and silly crazes.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    I’ve been thinking about this position today and I don’t see how it makes any sense. Look: would a 10 million dollar salary really induce you to work 10 times harder than a 1 million dollar salary? What about 100 million- would you be working 4000 hours a week instead of 40? You’re going to spend all that money on one person and expect to get your moneys worth? No. Upper executives get that kind of money because they can, not because it makes sense. Imagine you’re a janitor. Every day the boss drives away in a Maserati and every day you wait for the bus. You’ve been working really hard hoping for a 2 dollars an hour raise, but one day the boss brings you into his office and tells you the money is not there. The following day, you find out that executive bonuses have increased by 20 percent and the company has issued 50 billion dollars in stock buybacks. How does this make you feel about the value of hard work?

An honest question: if a technological solution were found that both solved climate change and allowed us to continue burning fossil fuels, would you accept it?

earthtolazlo 7y ago
Having your cake and eating it too sounds like a great option. It just doesn’t have any basis in reality.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Parent as I read it isn't suggesting that having your cake and eating it too is possible, instead they're attempting to establish a dual-scale demarcation of viewpoints with one scale being "Prohibition or allowance of fossil fuels" and the other scale being "Fixes or does not fix climate change". This is useful because polling has discovered many US Republicans will actually vote for climate solutions _if_ they employ new technologies that would result in new industries.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The people voting against environmental reforms are doing it because they don't want to reduce their quality of life. And since nothing comes close to the cost to energy density ratio of fossil fuels, there is no solution other than reducing energy usage and reducing quality of life. And so without convincing people they should reduce their quality of life for the benefit of future generations, nothing is going to happen.
    - natch 7y ago
      >The people voting against environmental reforms are doing it because they don't want to reduce their quality of life. No. They're doing it because of tribalism and ignorance. They perceive that by allowing progress on energy sustainability issues, they allow the enemy tribe a victory. And many of them don't care at all about sustainability because they believe the second coming is just around the corner. The ones who think it would reduce their quality of life are just being ignorant. They don't understand the possibilities. >And since nothing comes close to the cost to energy density ratio of fossil fuels... Well, it's not that simple. You can't just look at the energy density without looking at the context. Even dry wood comes close (within an order of magnitude) to fossil fuels. And ethanol is even better. But there are issues with both of these. That's the thing. You need to also account for the issues. And fossil fuels themselves also have issues, namely, the topic at hand, climate change. If you want the highest energy density, you would go with an H-bomb or a high energy laser. But you need to harness the energy in a context so being realistic about it, fossil fuels need to go. Just as we can't power our civilization sustainably with fusion bombs, we also can't do so with fossil fuels. The energy density of fossil fuel is around 40 Megajoules/liter, which is impressive (though not compared to an h-bomb at over 7,500,000 MJ/L), but when you put it in a car, the energy density of the whole system drops to 0.2 on the same scale. Not so great at all. Where things get interesting is if you take batteries, which are an order of magnitude worse energy density on their own compared to fossil fuels on their own, and you make them into an integral structural component of the automobile system, as Tesla has done. So now if you look at the entire system, batteries become much more competitive in context. Your tank of gasoline is not serving any structural or stability enhancing role in your ICE car. But a battery is, thus bringing benefits which on an ICE car have to incur extra weight. >there is no solution other than reducing energy usage and reducing quality of life Not true. We squander so much freely available solar energy by allowing it to heat tar-covered rooftops which could instead be collecting it as solar power. There is plenty of energy for our use. There is no need to reduce quality of life. People are already living this. The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        >The ones who think it would reduce their quality of life are just being ignorant. They don't understand the possibilities. I'm not willing to give people that benefit of the doubt. Deep down, people are loss averse, and will tell themselves whatever about the second coming or make up conspiracies to do it. The real cause is people don't want to give up single family homes with garages and SUVs on quarter+ acre lots. People don't want to give up annual vacations to tropical destinations. > The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed. It's not evenly distributed because the costs aren't felt evenly. Fossil fuels are portable, they start on demand in a variety of weather or time of day, and they have all the infrastructure already setup to use them. They're good at what they do. But until the environmental costs aren't incorporated into the financial costs of fossil fuels, I don't see what would motivate people to move away from them.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    Will they vote for the LFTR? They haven't so far.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    I suspect that unfortunately there is a mismatch between hypothetical polling and reality given the current outright hostility to solar and wind in spite of them contribuiting jobs and income in their regions. Farmers are renting land for turbines using fallow fields for solar panels and are facing bizzare objections when there are fewer externalities than the existing options.
- growlist 7y ago
  > It just doesn’t have any basis in reality. So you're effectively denying the possibility? I'd say that's a pretty gargantuan assumption to make.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    It’s very, very, very unlikely that we’ll find a magic bullet solution at this stage. Removing co2 from the atmosphere requires some external energy source, for one thing.
thrower123 7y ago
Well, if there's anything that the environmentalists hate more than petroleum, it is nuclear power. So there's the sticky wicket. We have the solution in hand, but no will to embrace it.
fallingfrog 7y ago
That would depend on the risks and the side effects, but assuming there was some magic bullet that would restore the atmosphere to a stable state and allow the burning of unlimited fossil fuels- yes, in a heartbeat.

ebiester 7y ago

All of these are "not only but also" solutions. One thing we need to do is end the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, but that only addresses one type of pollution, and it only gets us so far if the alternative doesn't pollute in some way. (For example, solar and the waste that it generates.) We need to solve the whole ecosystem issue.

growlist 7y ago
> We need to solve the whole ecosystem issue. Which unless we come up with some pretty smart measures is inevitably going to involve poorer lifestyles for most in the developed world, in effect (and perhaps this explains the keeness on the left for environmental issues) moving us to a more socialist model, wherein hard work offers far less in terms of monetary reward than at present.
- disgruntledphd2 7y ago
  What does it profit a man to gain monetary reward if he loses his sustaining ecosystem?
  - growlist 7y ago
    Well quite. But that doesn't change the fact that enforcing poorer lifestyles will inevitably affect the incentive to work hard. This website is in no small part about startups and getting rich, isn't it? Personally, I'm forced to compete because I live in a stupidly overpriced part of the world in terms of housing (SE UK) but apart from a nice house I need very little to support my ego apart from my dog and family, so I think I'd cope with the poorer lifestyle far better than many people I see around me, seeming to have built their self-worth around posessions and silly crazes.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  I’ve been thinking about this position today and I don’t see how it makes any sense. Look: would a 10 million dollar salary really induce you to work 10 times harder than a 1 million dollar salary? What about 100 million- would you be working 4000 hours a week instead of 40? You’re going to spend all that money on one person and expect to get your moneys worth? No. Upper executives get that kind of money because they can, not because it makes sense. Imagine you’re a janitor. Every day the boss drives away in a Maserati and every day you wait for the bus. You’ve been working really hard hoping for a 2 dollars an hour raise, but one day the boss brings you into his office and tells you the money is not there. The following day, you find out that executive bonuses have increased by 20 percent and the company has issued 50 billion dollars in stock buybacks. How does this make you feel about the value of hard work?