6 ms·

Reminds me of the joke whose punchline is that if we transition to renewable energy and go carbon-neutral we'll have gotten ourselves off of oil and its related

by vzidex 7y ago

Reminds me of the joke whose punchline is that if we transition to renewable energy and go carbon-neutral we'll have gotten ourselves off of oil and its related issues (spills, war, etc.) for nothing [1]. Even if you don't believe in climate change - which I do not think is a reasonable position at this point - I would hope we can all agree that not having to rely on oil any more is a good enough economic incentive for everyone. [1] https://solar-power-now.com/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/ https://solar-power-now.com/what-if-we-create-a-better-world...

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Just a quick nit, but we make a lot of plastics and things out of oil, and iirc it’s still the most dense and stable form of energy we have. Far more so than any battery technology even on the horizon. Even if renewables were 100% perfect tomorrow, there will still be people / groups / applications for that oil. It’ll just last much longer before we run out.
- TOGoS 7y ago
  Yep. Even more reason to conserve it for cases where we actually need it. Plastic is tremendously useful, though we could probably use a lot less of it, too. Particularly in the ocean.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  One more reason to not burn it.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    Crude oil is distilled (refined), not generally burned. The result is several products, all of which are used for different purposes. Naptha is best suited for plastic production; gasoline is a different chemical makeup. Also, a good chunk of plastic can be produced from natural gas, using ethylene instead of the naptha from crude oil.
    - wilg 7y ago
      One more reason to not refine then burn it!
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Yea, I agree. But what about the FACT that it's so much denser of an energy source than any battery we have? The straight up truth is that right now, unless there is so amazing innovation, we are going to use every drop. In the short term at least the world's militaries will burn as much oil as they can. Regardless of what you hear in press releases, major industry, military, aerospace will not move from oil until there is a performance reason, not ethical not cost reason to do so.
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      Batteries aren’t an energy source, they’re an energy storage device.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Guess what? We use oil as an energy storage device. So are you making the argument that fuel/oil is a battery or are you just being pedantic and don’t have a counter the truth that we’re going to use it all - the only question is over what time period.
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      If we introduce a carbon tax, militaries would have an economic incentive to reduce carbon, just like everyone else.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        You believe that? You don’t know that the first exemption would be military and national security?
leftyted 7y ago
That joke boils down to "just do what we say even if we're wrong". That message isn't going to fly with a lot of people, especially in the US, where many are deeply suspicious of the government. Reminds me of Steve Bannon telling some Republican congressman "look, you really have no choice, you have to support this proposal". To which the guy replied "last time someone told me I had to do something I was 18 and it was my daddy, and I didn't listen then either". "Do what we say or we all die" is also not a great message...even if it's true (which, personally, I doubt).
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  How can you possibly doubt that? What have you seen to convince yourself that catastrophic climate change is not real? Or perhaps you're taking the other rational position - that even if we did what they say, we'll still die... Oh, and the joke boils down to no such thing. It is very explicitly 'even if we were somehow wrong about climate change, there are so many other huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels'.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    My understanding is that "we're all going to die" is not a widely accepted view among climate scientists. I am skeptical of "catastrophic climate change leading to the end of life as we know it or the extinction of humanity" e.g. Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth. Anyway, my point was simple. If you want to sell people on "huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels" then sell them on that. Don't use a stick when you could use a carrot. This stuff is political. It's about persuasion, personal relationships, talking to people like they're not idiots (even if they are), showing respect, and so on. It's not about being right.
    - mlaretallack 7y ago
      "It's not about being right." This is the best advice to all sides. I have found in the past that the best way to convince people is not to try to "convince" them that my "view" is correct but to listen to their views. I call this being a "Cardboard engineer". It does not work for everyone.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuclear power plants. Even if you have a Chernobyl somewhere in the world every 5 years, you are still probably better off than with catastrophic climate change. Basically, it is this thinking that makes a lot of people suspicious about climate change. If all things that you would do to combat climate change are things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway (increase taxes, more government regulation of industry, more urbanization, more public transportation, etc) and nothing that they would not want to do, people on the other side of the political spectrum have their bs detector go off.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change. Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.
  - cryptica 7y ago
    I support climate change and the extinction of the human species so I think the future is looking really good.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - avmich 7y ago
    When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.
- animalnewbie 7y ago
  To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions? Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic). Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?
Udik 7y ago
> I would hope we can all agree that not having to rely on oil any more is a good enough economic incentive for everyone. It is an economic incentive, but whether it's "good enough" depends on the costs of the transition- which are certainly dependent on how quick it needs to be.

by vzidex 7y ago

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

Just a quick nit, but we make a lot of plastics and things out of oil, and iirc it’s still the most dense and stable form of energy we have. Far more so than any battery technology even on the horizon. Even if renewables were 100% perfect tomorrow, there will still be people / groups / applications for that oil. It’ll just last much longer before we run out.

TOGoS 7y ago
Yep. Even more reason to conserve it for cases where we actually need it. Plastic is tremendously useful, though we could probably use a lot less of it, too. Particularly in the ocean.
jacquesm 7y ago
One more reason to not burn it.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  Crude oil is distilled (refined), not generally burned. The result is several products, all of which are used for different purposes. Naptha is best suited for plastic production; gasoline is a different chemical makeup. Also, a good chunk of plastic can be produced from natural gas, using ethylene instead of the naptha from crude oil.
  - wilg 7y ago
    One more reason to not refine then burn it!
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Yea, I agree. But what about the FACT that it's so much denser of an energy source than any battery we have? The straight up truth is that right now, unless there is so amazing innovation, we are going to use every drop. In the short term at least the world's militaries will burn as much oil as they can. Regardless of what you hear in press releases, major industry, military, aerospace will not move from oil until there is a performance reason, not ethical not cost reason to do so.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Batteries aren’t an energy source, they’re an energy storage device.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Guess what? We use oil as an energy storage device. So are you making the argument that fuel/oil is a battery or are you just being pedantic and don’t have a counter the truth that we’re going to use it all - the only question is over what time period.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    If we introduce a carbon tax, militaries would have an economic incentive to reduce carbon, just like everyone else.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      You believe that? You don’t know that the first exemption would be military and national security?

leftyted 7y ago

That joke boils down to "just do what we say even if we're wrong". That message isn't going to fly with a lot of people, especially in the US, where many are deeply suspicious of the government. Reminds me of Steve Bannon telling some Republican congressman "look, you really have no choice, you have to support this proposal". To which the guy replied "last time someone told me I had to do something I was 18 and it was my daddy, and I didn't listen then either". "Do what we say or we all die" is also not a great message...even if it's true (which, personally, I doubt).

tsimionescu 7y ago
How can you possibly doubt that? What have you seen to convince yourself that catastrophic climate change is not real? Or perhaps you're taking the other rational position - that even if we did what they say, we'll still die... Oh, and the joke boils down to no such thing. It is very explicitly 'even if we were somehow wrong about climate change, there are so many other huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels'.
- leftyted 7y ago
  My understanding is that "we're all going to die" is not a widely accepted view among climate scientists. I am skeptical of "catastrophic climate change leading to the end of life as we know it or the extinction of humanity" e.g. Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth. Anyway, my point was simple. If you want to sell people on "huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels" then sell them on that. Don't use a stick when you could use a carrot. This stuff is political. It's about persuasion, personal relationships, talking to people like they're not idiots (even if they are), showing respect, and so on. It's not about being right.
  - mlaretallack 7y ago
    "It's not about being right." This is the best advice to all sides. I have found in the past that the best way to convince people is not to try to "convince" them that my "view" is correct but to listen to their views. I call this being a "Cardboard engineer". It does not work for everyone.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuclear power plants. Even if you have a Chernobyl somewhere in the world every 5 years, you are still probably better off than with catastrophic climate change. Basically, it is this thinking that makes a lot of people suspicious about climate change. If all things that you would do to combat climate change are things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway (increase taxes, more government regulation of industry, more urbanization, more public transportation, etc) and nothing that they would not want to do, people on the other side of the political spectrum have their bs detector go off.

buzzkillington 7y ago
There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change. Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.
- cryptica 7y ago
  I support climate change and the extinction of the human species so I think the future is looking really good.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- avmich 7y ago
  When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.
animalnewbie 7y ago
To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions? Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic). Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?

Udik 7y ago

> I would hope we can all agree that not having to rely on oil any more is a good enough economic incentive for everyone. It is an economic incentive, but whether it's "good enough" depends on the costs of the transition- which are certainly dependent on how quick it needs to be.