12 ms·

It's also a good reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and not just extract them as quickly as possible wherever we find them. It seems conceivable that we

It's also a good reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and not just extract them as quickly as possible wherever we find them. It seems conceivable that we could eventually find ourselves thermodynamically unable to recover after a catastrophy like a big solar flare. Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to make money by being responsible in this way. We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine.

seph-reed 6y ago
> We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine Not usually a fan of us vs them mentality, but your use of "we" here feels bad. Surely, it's all of us that use these resources, nobody on HN is self sufficient (please be the exception). But at the same time, most of us aren't getting much of the "cocaine" here, at least relatively. It would almost be reasonable to say "They are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine".. whoever they are. The ones with cocaine mustaches presumably. EDIT: Someone paid a lot of money to make this not an "our" choice but instead a "their" choice. If you feel like this is something you have any real control over, I urge you to change things.
- aksss 6y ago
  You kidding me? We're all getting the coke. Just because you're not Scarface doesn't avoid the fact that all of us are awash in plastics, silicone, rare earth metals, concrete, steel, precious metals, alloys, goods from far flung lands, industrial agriculture and many assumptions about available services that rely on the same and ravenous upstream fossil fuel consumption. We (as human consumers) never had it so good, and if that luxury is unevenly distributed, the fact remains that the tide continues to lift all boats globally. You certainly benefit from the aggregate bounty society as a whole has reaped (enjoy that Starbucks!) and directly are living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago. I don't even know you in the least, but am comfortable making that statement categorically because the difference is global capabilities is that profound.
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    EDIT: This post is angry. I say my words more clearly below. > living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago > We (as human consumers) never had it so good You couldn't possibly understand how much better community and and a sense purpose is to the life we're living. The fact that we become more and more isolated, more and more lied to, more and more defeated and yet: you think gimmicky material goods is what defines quality of life.. it's depressing. I've seen so many people of your stance see how wrong they are the moment they find community, but I've never seen a person lose community and feel like money could replace it. -------- FURTHER! WHAT THE FUCK!? WHY IS ANY OF THIS NECESSARY TO GET THESE GOODS!? Can you really not imagine a world where we make technological progress without doing horrible things?! How fucking much cool-aid have you drank!?
    - simonh 6y ago
      It’s not either/or, you can have community with or without material goods. I do have community and a sense of purpose and a satisfying life with my family around me. Many don’t, but that has always been true at all times and all places through everything we know about the history of human life. You’re writing as though misery and suffering were recent inventions of Capitalism, previously unknown to mankind. The fact is though we are all in the developed world swimming in material wealth and comfort unimaginable to most humans from even a few generations ago. Only an incredible abundance of cheap energy and raw materials make this possible. Yes the very wealthy have yachts and helicopters, but if you have a reasonably up to date smartphone and laptop, a can of Coke or a Starbucks, maybe a PlayStation and a microwave oven, etc, there isn’t really much a billionaire can spend that will get them anything significantly better. The main advantage of wealth is getting other people to do things for you, but in terms of material life were in an incredibly democratic and egalitarian era.
      - seph-reed 6y ago
        I agree that things have gotten better over time, but how can you be so smug about it? The amount of hoarding, infighting, and extortion has been disgusting. We're advancing as slow as species seemingly could short of completely falling apart and destroying their Earth, and even that's in question right now. If we did things the way I'm speaking of, I guarantee you we'd have all of these things and more. Going slow and doing things right is worth it. Having value for creativity, community and labor is worth it. Not justifying oppressive decisions we couldn't have changed on the basis that we got some cheap consumer crap from it... it's worth it to me at least. This line of thought is unpopular now, but if history is any indicator, the sentience of the future will look back on these logs and question how the fuck you could read these words and not fucking get it. We would be more advanced if we didn't do these things. Not the other way around.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If you are an average american, you have the cocaine mustache, and your denial is the problem. There is no secret cabal where 1% of americans are using the vast majority of resources and emitting the majority of CO2. I addressed this point at greater length down thread in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579653
Nasrudith 6y ago
I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago. Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should strive to make renewables and storage the cheaper option though. To get really pedantic our 20th century understanding of power and energy are exactly backwards colloquially from what is really provided. Power is energy over time. The "power" infastructure was actually largely an energy infastructure with the exception of say hydro electric dams - you can only burn fuel once no matter how clever your ability to extract it. Meanwhile "renewable energy" provides power over its period of existence.
- Retric 6y ago
  There are a lot of surface level coal deposits right now that can be harvested with hand tools. It’s simply a question of efficiency, if a deposit is not vast nobody turns it into a mine.
- sizzle 6y ago
  What are the consequences of fracking?
  - stx 6y ago
    Localized earthquakes are one. Also companies doing fracking actually have a legal exemption to the typical requirement to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground. I believe they argue its a trade secret. I assume that if it was not really toxic they might disclose them. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-disclosure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-di...
  - rurban 6y ago
    Poisoning the groundwater, besides the earthquakes now and then. But who needs clean water?
- api 6y ago
aksss 6y ago
> There's no way for anyone to make money by being responsible Not just that, but there's no way to sustain the level of human development (and population) we currently have without continuing to feed the energy beast. Our daily burn rate on oil/gas/coal is so profoundly high, and growing, that a) nothing can fill the gap; and b) it can't be shut down without condemning further development (esp. in Africa, India and China). Two disconnected factoids to illustrate the level of dependency and consumption we have today: without ammonia synthesis from fossil fuel, worldwide organic fertilizer stock could sustain only about 4bln people - globally; China in-serviced more cement (which requires fossil fuels) in like five years than the US did in the last 100 years. To reduce carbon output, you need to switch coal use to natural gas where possible. That's the best near term solution right now - isolate coal and oil consumption to the industries that really need them - e.g. transportation, manufacturing - and work on alternative sources of electric generation, i.e. hydro where available, nuclear where not, unless some miracle net-positive and reliable electric generation method becomes available in the meantime.
- godzillabrennus 6y ago
  We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Using renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.
    - aksss 6y ago
      There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&t=855s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.
Someone 6y ago
I would think the combination of windmills and wood supplies should almost always provide a (ssllooww) recovery path. There will plenty of metals on the surface. Use the wood to melt iron. Use iron to make saws. Use saws to cut trees into beams and planks. Use beams and planks to build windmills. Use windmills to generate power and electricity. Etc. Using coal and oil we went through the part from using mills for power to where we are now in about 250 years. On the one hand, if knowledge is retained, that can be sped up. On the other hand, it will be a lot harder to go through that process without coal and oil. I would guess the net effect will be that it will take longer, as one of the effects of not having coal and oil will be lower yields in agriculture and, hence, a much smaller world population that also has to make a bigger effort to produce food.
- sigstoat 6y ago
  > There will plenty of metals on the surface. we've even brought a lot of them closer to the surface, refined them, and alloyed them!
arpa 6y ago
We still have nuclear tech.

seph-reed 6y ago

> We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine Not usually a fan of us vs them mentality, but your use of "we" here feels bad. Surely, it's all of us that use these resources, nobody on HN is self sufficient (please be the exception). But at the same time, most of us aren't getting much of the "cocaine" here, at least relatively. It would almost be reasonable to say "They are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine".. whoever they are. The ones with cocaine mustaches presumably. EDIT: Someone paid a lot of money to make this not an "our" choice but instead a "their" choice. If you feel like this is something you have any real control over, I urge you to change things.

aksss 6y ago
You kidding me? We're all getting the coke. Just because you're not Scarface doesn't avoid the fact that all of us are awash in plastics, silicone, rare earth metals, concrete, steel, precious metals, alloys, goods from far flung lands, industrial agriculture and many assumptions about available services that rely on the same and ravenous upstream fossil fuel consumption. We (as human consumers) never had it so good, and if that luxury is unevenly distributed, the fact remains that the tide continues to lift all boats globally. You certainly benefit from the aggregate bounty society as a whole has reaped (enjoy that Starbucks!) and directly are living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago. I don't even know you in the least, but am comfortable making that statement categorically because the difference is global capabilities is that profound.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  EDIT: This post is angry. I say my words more clearly below. > living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago > We (as human consumers) never had it so good You couldn't possibly understand how much better community and and a sense purpose is to the life we're living. The fact that we become more and more isolated, more and more lied to, more and more defeated and yet: you think gimmicky material goods is what defines quality of life.. it's depressing. I've seen so many people of your stance see how wrong they are the moment they find community, but I've never seen a person lose community and feel like money could replace it. -------- FURTHER! WHAT THE FUCK!? WHY IS ANY OF THIS NECESSARY TO GET THESE GOODS!? Can you really not imagine a world where we make technological progress without doing horrible things?! How fucking much cool-aid have you drank!?
  - simonh 6y ago
    It’s not either/or, you can have community with or without material goods. I do have community and a sense of purpose and a satisfying life with my family around me. Many don’t, but that has always been true at all times and all places through everything we know about the history of human life. You’re writing as though misery and suffering were recent inventions of Capitalism, previously unknown to mankind. The fact is though we are all in the developed world swimming in material wealth and comfort unimaginable to most humans from even a few generations ago. Only an incredible abundance of cheap energy and raw materials make this possible. Yes the very wealthy have yachts and helicopters, but if you have a reasonably up to date smartphone and laptop, a can of Coke or a Starbucks, maybe a PlayStation and a microwave oven, etc, there isn’t really much a billionaire can spend that will get them anything significantly better. The main advantage of wealth is getting other people to do things for you, but in terms of material life were in an incredibly democratic and egalitarian era.
    - seph-reed 6y ago
      I agree that things have gotten better over time, but how can you be so smug about it? The amount of hoarding, infighting, and extortion has been disgusting. We're advancing as slow as species seemingly could short of completely falling apart and destroying their Earth, and even that's in question right now. If we did things the way I'm speaking of, I guarantee you we'd have all of these things and more. Going slow and doing things right is worth it. Having value for creativity, community and labor is worth it. Not justifying oppressive decisions we couldn't have changed on the basis that we got some cheap consumer crap from it... it's worth it to me at least. This line of thought is unpopular now, but if history is any indicator, the sentience of the future will look back on these logs and question how the fuck you could read these words and not fucking get it. We would be more advanced if we didn't do these things. Not the other way around.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
If you are an average american, you have the cocaine mustache, and your denial is the problem. There is no secret cabal where 1% of americans are using the vast majority of resources and emitting the majority of CO2. I addressed this point at greater length down thread in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579653

Nasrudith 6y ago

I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago. Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should strive to make renewables and storage the cheaper option though. To get really pedantic our 20th century understanding of power and energy are exactly backwards colloquially from what is really provided. Power is energy over time. The "power" infastructure was actually largely an energy infastructure with the exception of say hydro electric dams - you can only burn fuel once no matter how clever your ability to extract it. Meanwhile "renewable energy" provides power over its period of existence.

Retric 6y ago
There are a lot of surface level coal deposits right now that can be harvested with hand tools. It’s simply a question of efficiency, if a deposit is not vast nobody turns it into a mine.
sizzle 6y ago
What are the consequences of fracking?
- stx 6y ago
  Localized earthquakes are one. Also companies doing fracking actually have a legal exemption to the typical requirement to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground. I believe they argue its a trade secret. I assume that if it was not really toxic they might disclose them. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-disclosure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-di...
- rurban 6y ago
  Poisoning the groundwater, besides the earthquakes now and then. But who needs clean water?
api 6y ago

aksss 6y ago

> There's no way for anyone to make money by being responsible Not just that, but there's no way to sustain the level of human development (and population) we currently have without continuing to feed the energy beast. Our daily burn rate on oil/gas/coal is so profoundly high, and growing, that a) nothing can fill the gap; and b) it can't be shut down without condemning further development (esp. in Africa, India and China). Two disconnected factoids to illustrate the level of dependency and consumption we have today: without ammonia synthesis from fossil fuel, worldwide organic fertilizer stock could sustain only about 4bln people - globally; China in-serviced more cement (which requires fossil fuels) in like five years than the US did in the last 100 years. To reduce carbon output, you need to switch coal use to natural gas where possible. That's the best near term solution right now - isolate coal and oil consumption to the industries that really need them - e.g. transportation, manufacturing - and work on alternative sources of electric generation, i.e. hydro where available, nuclear where not, unless some miracle net-positive and reliable electric generation method becomes available in the meantime.

godzillabrennus 6y ago
We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Using renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.
  - aksss 6y ago
    There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&t=855s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.

Someone 6y ago

I would think the combination of windmills and wood supplies should almost always provide a (ssllooww) recovery path. There will plenty of metals on the surface. Use the wood to melt iron. Use iron to make saws. Use saws to cut trees into beams and planks. Use beams and planks to build windmills. Use windmills to generate power and electricity. Etc. Using coal and oil we went through the part from using mills for power to where we are now in about 250 years. On the one hand, if knowledge is retained, that can be sped up. On the other hand, it will be a lot harder to go through that process without coal and oil. I would guess the net effect will be that it will take longer, as one of the effects of not having coal and oil will be lower yields in agriculture and, hence, a much smaller world population that also has to make a bigger effort to produce food.

sigstoat 6y ago
> There will plenty of metals on the surface. we've even brought a lot of them closer to the surface, refined them, and alloyed them!

arpa 6y ago

We still have nuclear tech.