6 ms·

There’s so much attention aimed at proving climate change deniers wrong, or proving that petroleum executives know that climate change is real. These are valid

by kbos87 6y ago

There’s so much attention aimed at proving climate change deniers wrong, or proving that petroleum executives know that climate change is real. These are valid pursuits, but I worry that they are also a convenient object of our anger. Really turning the tide on climate change is going to require everyone in modern society to swallow some tough pills around our daily routines and consumption patterns. Aiming all of our anger and blame and attention at corporations producing products that support the way of life we aren’t willing to change is denial and a waste of time.

Retric 6y ago
We can fix climate change without changing electrical useage, driving habits, or really any habits at all. The only required day to day change worth noting is eliminating gas stoves which isn’t that critical or difficult for most people. The real issue is industry has little incentive to change. Airlines etc are hardly going to transition to more expensive options without economic incentives.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  This isn't anywhere near true.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    What specifically do you take issue with? A solar hot water heater or a gas water heater for example both just result in hot water on demand. We don’t use solar hot water heaters in the US even though their currently a cheaper alternative largely because of how houses are constructed and sold. People constructing sub divisions don’t care about your annual heating bills because home buyers don’t pay attention to that stuff.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      If switching stoves to electric fixed global heating was the solution, we would be there already. Edit: I took the gas stove hook too much probably
      - Retric 6y ago
        Which has nothing to do with what I said. No single change is going to eliminate net CO2 production. You need to solve every single one and electric vs gas stoves are a very specific example of that choice. Worldwide no country has weighed in on gas vs electric stoves in large part because it’s not a major factor but also because nobody is actually aiming for zero CO2. Carbon is produced as a side effect of methods not an inherent property of a given lifestyle.
- bsenftner 6y ago
  Citation required, as this really sounds like one of the incredibly short sighted "reasonings" used by conservative people with the incredible vision capability that only sees the tip of their noses.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Electric cars are hardly a unproven technology at this point. Solar panels are significantly cheaper than fossil fuels on their own and cost less than nuclear when backed up by batteries. For perspective the fuel use on a natural gas generator on it’s own costs twice that of a solar panel. The economics of single axis solar tracking is more expensive than fixed solar panels, but far cheaper than battery storage. They have a huge impact on the duck curve. Now, the rate of which this stuff comes one line is an issue. But, any change of this magnitude takes time.
    - bsenftner 6y ago
      You're not responding to my disagreement that all we need to do is stop using gas stoves.
      - Retric 6y ago
        That’s not the only change required, it’s the only case where the alternative has a lifestyle impact. Feel free to find something else that directly requires the burning of fossil fuels without any equivalent option. I can’t defend an argument that doesn’t exist. Trying to name every single things people do and say no that doesn’t need fossil fuels either is ridiculous. But hey you could visit the moon without them that should reasonably suggest alternatives for all forms of transportation. Energy generation and manufacturing has alternatives, what more do you want?
inamberclad 6y ago
Most people don't have a choice about how much they pollute. Can't get anywhere without burning gas, can't buy anything that doesn't come wrapped in plastic. The choices were made for us.
- rthomas6 6y ago
  Yes you can... You can't go to zero, but it's untrue to say "I can do nothing".
- kbos87 6y ago
  I agree that some choices were made for us, but abdicating any personal responsibility In favor of anger at someone else strikes me as lazy and defeatist thinking. Many people in industrialized nations make choices every day and have full control over their own behavior - how they get around, what they eat, how and how often they travel, the brands they engage with... sitting and waiting for the problem to be solved for us is what’s gotten us nowhere.
- istorical 6y ago
  You can cut down a ton of your carbon emissions by not supporting the fashion industry, only buying used clothing or making your own, or at the least buying only a very small number of pieces of clothing that have extremely long lifespan. You can modify your diet to avoid the incredible carbon production created by meat (even if just reducing number of times a week you eat red meat). You can buy less useless shit on Amazon that you don't really _need_ just vaguely want. There's a lot you _can_ do. But you're right that it's not enough to solve the problem alone.
leeoniya 6y ago
the way to make massive change is through regulations on the producers and pricing in all externalities. that disposable polysterene plate is not $0.01, it's actually closer to $0.10. individuals will not act until there is famine and sewage is coming out of their faucets, at which point it is much too late.
rbecker 6y ago
The problem is those same executives then lobby against renewables, and against taxing oil for its externalities (which would also make renewables more economical). So they're actively preventing the changing of that way of life. Just like plastic industry lobbied against reusable packaging, then when 95% of everything in the supermarket causes plastic waste, you go and blame consumers for not personally going to farms to buy produce directly.
bsenftner 6y ago
You're right, and half wrong at the same time. Yes, everyone will need to change habits, but a huge part of that change will require massive changes upstream - and the exact type of changes the oil and gas and GOP-mind-share cannot tolerate. Manufacturing and packaging of EVERYTHING will have to require careful and specific regulation of what plastics and hybrid constructions of plastic, metal and paper that can and cannot be put into products and their packaging. That is STEP ONE, BEFORE THE POPULATIONS' MATERIAL EFFORTS CAN ACTUALLY BEGIN. So, do you really think this is an issue of "getting everybody to conserve" or is it an issue of "getting the GOP-mind-share to recognize the necessity of serious and enforced regulations".
- XorNot 6y ago
  If manufacturing would like to screw off with shipping things in huge amounts of styrofoam, that would be just great because have you ever tried to get rid of styrofoam in the trash cleanly? Why do we ever have this material still in use when cardboard exists?
gmuslera 6y ago
In February came out some statistics (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019) showing that we added in 2019 as much CO2 to the atmosphere in energy generation than in 2018 (over the trend increasing it every year). It was a somewhat good news, but it wasn't so much in the context that in the last years we invested a lot in clean energy generation, so it meant that the oil industry kept growing their emissions, at a rate that matched all what we did to lower it. Leaving unchecked that loose end means that all our effort and investment will be wasted. And if all we did is only good enough to match the increasing of oil based energy generation we are still not dealing with the non-energy related emissions (like methane coming from the oil industry) or positive feedback loops in the environment increasing CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.
ThomPete 6y ago
Cramer recently said he was getting out of fossil fuel investments. Not because they are not great businesses but because the perception of them have changed so much which affects the market. There is nothing controversial in energy executives being worried about how to change peoples minds of the most important and life giving form of raw material we have. My guess is that in 10 years we wont talk about climate change anymore. Most major investments will fail, a california like situation on the energy front will infect many states and then it's citizens will vote to get back to oil, coal, gas and maybe even get started on nuclear again. Climate change is real, it's always been real. Catastrophic climate change is a political vehicles, not science based and not even supported by the very IPCC politicians and journalist use to make some of their more outrageous claims.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Depending where you live, catastrophic climate change has already happened...
  - refurb 6y ago
    Really? Where?

by kbos87 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

We can fix climate change without changing electrical useage, driving habits, or really any habits at all. The only required day to day change worth noting is eliminating gas stoves which isn’t that critical or difficult for most people. The real issue is industry has little incentive to change. Airlines etc are hardly going to transition to more expensive options without economic incentives.

mjburgess 6y ago
This isn't anywhere near true.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  What specifically do you take issue with? A solar hot water heater or a gas water heater for example both just result in hot water on demand. We don’t use solar hot water heaters in the US even though their currently a cheaper alternative largely because of how houses are constructed and sold. People constructing sub divisions don’t care about your annual heating bills because home buyers don’t pay attention to that stuff.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    If switching stoves to electric fixed global heating was the solution, we would be there already. Edit: I took the gas stove hook too much probably
    - Retric 6y ago
      Which has nothing to do with what I said. No single change is going to eliminate net CO2 production. You need to solve every single one and electric vs gas stoves are a very specific example of that choice. Worldwide no country has weighed in on gas vs electric stoves in large part because it’s not a major factor but also because nobody is actually aiming for zero CO2. Carbon is produced as a side effect of methods not an inherent property of a given lifestyle.
bsenftner 6y ago
Citation required, as this really sounds like one of the incredibly short sighted "reasonings" used by conservative people with the incredible vision capability that only sees the tip of their noses.
- Retric 6y ago
  Electric cars are hardly a unproven technology at this point. Solar panels are significantly cheaper than fossil fuels on their own and cost less than nuclear when backed up by batteries. For perspective the fuel use on a natural gas generator on it’s own costs twice that of a solar panel. The economics of single axis solar tracking is more expensive than fixed solar panels, but far cheaper than battery storage. They have a huge impact on the duck curve. Now, the rate of which this stuff comes one line is an issue. But, any change of this magnitude takes time.
  - bsenftner 6y ago
    You're not responding to my disagreement that all we need to do is stop using gas stoves.
    - Retric 6y ago
      That’s not the only change required, it’s the only case where the alternative has a lifestyle impact. Feel free to find something else that directly requires the burning of fossil fuels without any equivalent option. I can’t defend an argument that doesn’t exist. Trying to name every single things people do and say no that doesn’t need fossil fuels either is ridiculous. But hey you could visit the moon without them that should reasonably suggest alternatives for all forms of transportation. Energy generation and manufacturing has alternatives, what more do you want?

inamberclad 6y ago

Most people don't have a choice about how much they pollute. Can't get anywhere without burning gas, can't buy anything that doesn't come wrapped in plastic. The choices were made for us.

rthomas6 6y ago
Yes you can... You can't go to zero, but it's untrue to say "I can do nothing".
kbos87 6y ago
I agree that some choices were made for us, but abdicating any personal responsibility In favor of anger at someone else strikes me as lazy and defeatist thinking. Many people in industrialized nations make choices every day and have full control over their own behavior - how they get around, what they eat, how and how often they travel, the brands they engage with... sitting and waiting for the problem to be solved for us is what’s gotten us nowhere.
istorical 6y ago
You can cut down a ton of your carbon emissions by not supporting the fashion industry, only buying used clothing or making your own, or at the least buying only a very small number of pieces of clothing that have extremely long lifespan. You can modify your diet to avoid the incredible carbon production created by meat (even if just reducing number of times a week you eat red meat). You can buy less useless shit on Amazon that you don't really _need_ just vaguely want. There's a lot you _can_ do. But you're right that it's not enough to solve the problem alone.

leeoniya 6y ago

the way to make massive change is through regulations on the producers and pricing in all externalities. that disposable polysterene plate is not $0.01, it's actually closer to $0.10. individuals will not act until there is famine and sewage is coming out of their faucets, at which point it is much too late.

rbecker 6y ago

The problem is those same executives then lobby against renewables, and against taxing oil for its externalities (which would also make renewables more economical). So they're actively preventing the changing of that way of life. Just like plastic industry lobbied against reusable packaging, then when 95% of everything in the supermarket causes plastic waste, you go and blame consumers for not personally going to farms to buy produce directly.

bsenftner 6y ago

You're right, and half wrong at the same time. Yes, everyone will need to change habits, but a huge part of that change will require massive changes upstream - and the exact type of changes the oil and gas and GOP-mind-share cannot tolerate. Manufacturing and packaging of EVERYTHING will have to require careful and specific regulation of what plastics and hybrid constructions of plastic, metal and paper that can and cannot be put into products and their packaging. That is STEP ONE, BEFORE THE POPULATIONS' MATERIAL EFFORTS CAN ACTUALLY BEGIN. So, do you really think this is an issue of "getting everybody to conserve" or is it an issue of "getting the GOP-mind-share to recognize the necessity of serious and enforced regulations".

XorNot 6y ago
If manufacturing would like to screw off with shipping things in huge amounts of styrofoam, that would be just great because have you ever tried to get rid of styrofoam in the trash cleanly? Why do we ever have this material still in use when cardboard exists?

gmuslera 6y ago

In February came out some statistics (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019) showing that we added in 2019 as much CO2 to the atmosphere in energy generation than in 2018 (over the trend increasing it every year). It was a somewhat good news, but it wasn't so much in the context that in the last years we invested a lot in clean energy generation, so it meant that the oil industry kept growing their emissions, at a rate that matched all what we did to lower it. Leaving unchecked that loose end means that all our effort and investment will be wasted. And if all we did is only good enough to match the increasing of oil based energy generation we are still not dealing with the non-energy related emissions (like methane coming from the oil industry) or positive feedback loops in the environment increasing CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.

ThomPete 6y ago

Cramer recently said he was getting out of fossil fuel investments. Not because they are not great businesses but because the perception of them have changed so much which affects the market. There is nothing controversial in energy executives being worried about how to change peoples minds of the most important and life giving form of raw material we have. My guess is that in 10 years we wont talk about climate change anymore. Most major investments will fail, a california like situation on the energy front will infect many states and then it's citizens will vote to get back to oil, coal, gas and maybe even get started on nuclear again. Climate change is real, it's always been real. Catastrophic climate change is a political vehicles, not science based and not even supported by the very IPCC politicians and journalist use to make some of their more outrageous claims.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Depending where you live, catastrophic climate change has already happened...
- refurb 6y ago
  Really? Where?