3 ms·

What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered sh

What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
teachingassist 6y ago
If governments had the guts to implement these policies (e.g.) 10 years ago with phased introduction, then we would already have replacement fuel sources and not have to limit anything. I'd personally be happy if we did that even now, but the longer we put it off, the larger the cost to be paid. Your last point describes a corrupt government which can happen either way, and is not particularly relevant to environmental policy.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Do you have a source for the claim about other fuel sources? Some replacements are physically constrained (like lithium for batteries). There has been a lot of money already spent to find replacements like super capacitors, and for much longer than 10 years.
  - teachingassist 6y ago
    I can't source a hypothetical, no. Do you think that invalidates my point? [Edited in response to your edit: fuel and battery technology has improved significantly over the last decade, with little or no political pressure, and shows signs that it will continue to improve. I expect that it would have improved more quickly with political pressure, yes.]
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yes, I do. Throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily speed up the time to delivery. This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly.
      - teachingassist 6y ago
        > This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly. This is a nonsense ad absurdum argument. It's self-evidently true that more devs will, in general, deliver projects more quickly - especially considering that we are talking about a system, not a single project. Otherwise, we could have One True Dev delivering all of the world's software. Do you think that is reasonable? Political pressure won't necessarily make a difference, as you say, but sustained and genuine political pressure will almost certainly make a difference.
        giantg2 6y ago
        You call out a supposed fallacy in my statement but not your own. Simply repeating an unsupported belief is not support for an argument - appeal to emotion by wishful thinking, ad nauseam. You might want to look up Brooks's Law.
        teachingassist 6y ago
        If you're demanding sources but haven't provided any of your own, you're simply trolling. Look up Brooks's Law yourself. It begins with "under certain conditions", none of which apply here.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I'm not trolling. You could have redacted your unsupported comment, making this chain moot. And do you have any points for why the exceptions to those circumstances would apply here? Or are you just stating that as fact, like the rest of your argument? It seems like you are relying on the fallacy fallacy (yes that's a real thing) - don't bother proving your own opinion, just say that mine is wrong because you think I have a fallacy.
codefined 6y ago
It feels like it's about direct / indirect issues. If to buy a gas powered car I had to go out and shoot somebody, I doubt we'd have nearly as many cars around. Air pollution kills 7 million people a year[0]. That's not including other forms of pollution. I also feel nobody is arguing to cancel everything immediately. They're arguing to stop building new coal power plants when there are alternatives. They're arguing for increased taxes on companies that produce pollution so that they have motivation to reduce their external effects. Etc. [0] https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf
127 6y ago
What if I told you, you can't dumb toxic sewage on my backyard anymore because it's causing serious health problems? What if I said the same thing about all toxic sewage dumping on peoples back yards? Because I feel that the toxic sewage dumping on peoples backyards is a problem, can I force you to abandon all toxic sewage dumping despite the massive financial costs and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? The rest is non-sequitur.
fny 6y ago
This might be more palatable: Say you are a developing country. The US comes to you and says we're going to restrict trade until you get your carbon footprint in line. This is, of course, being done for your own good (you're an agricultural nation after all--climate change will scorch your exports!) by countries who have dumped carbon into the atmosphere for centuries while they were industrializing. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international-climate-cooperation-might-require-carbon-tariffs/ https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international...
- gus_massa 6y ago
  1) You close the local steel smelter that use a lot of CO2 and produce the steel you sell to the US. 2) You start a campaign to eliminate agricultural subsidies globally and also make them reforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#Deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D... so they must buy your agricultural products at a higher price. 3) They invade you.
- mdiesel 6y ago
  At the moment, the incentives are all aligned with us keeping the 3rd world as it is for as long as possible. IMO we need to recognise that the rhetoric of it being "our fault" doesn't sell well, right or wrong. We need to change to saying that it's in our interests to help the rest of the world change quickly. Better still would be to make it in everyone's financial interests to do so that incentives are back aligned with the best outcome for the planet. We need to continue the R&D we're doing, and give away the research so that the nations currently industrialising can skip over that step. There are social issues as well, industrialisation of Britain was a major driver behind democratising the country and enabling social mobility, so it's hard to rush that as well.
- SCHiM 6y ago
  Who cares about the optics of it? We now know it's bad, that type of whataboutism is the most destructive and dumb kind that exists. Serously we should just pay for their solar panels, windfarms and reactors and be done with it.
YorickPeterse 6y ago
> What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? I don't have a car, so that's fine. Also there's this thing called "an electric car". You should look it up :) > What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? I'm not sure where this "it's either A or B" mindset comes from, but it's not a particular intelligent one. Just because we need to stop destroying our environment doesn't mean we have to stop doing _everything_ that involves fossil fuels. Long term maybe, but not necessarily all at once. > Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? When given the choice between no fossil fuels and no Earth, I think the choice is easy. Fortunately we're not quite there yet, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

teachingassist 6y ago

If governments had the guts to implement these policies (e.g.) 10 years ago with phased introduction, then we would already have replacement fuel sources and not have to limit anything. I'd personally be happy if we did that even now, but the longer we put it off, the larger the cost to be paid. Your last point describes a corrupt government which can happen either way, and is not particularly relevant to environmental policy.

giantg2 6y ago
Do you have a source for the claim about other fuel sources? Some replacements are physically constrained (like lithium for batteries). There has been a lot of money already spent to find replacements like super capacitors, and for much longer than 10 years.
- teachingassist 6y ago
  I can't source a hypothetical, no. Do you think that invalidates my point? [Edited in response to your edit: fuel and battery technology has improved significantly over the last decade, with little or no political pressure, and shows signs that it will continue to improve. I expect that it would have improved more quickly with political pressure, yes.]
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Yes, I do. Throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily speed up the time to delivery. This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly.
    - teachingassist 6y ago
      > This is very similar to the idea that throwing more devs at a project will help it deliver more quickly. This is a nonsense ad absurdum argument. It's self-evidently true that more devs will, in general, deliver projects more quickly - especially considering that we are talking about a system, not a single project. Otherwise, we could have One True Dev delivering all of the world's software. Do you think that is reasonable? Political pressure won't necessarily make a difference, as you say, but sustained and genuine political pressure will almost certainly make a difference.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        You call out a supposed fallacy in my statement but not your own. Simply repeating an unsupported belief is not support for an argument - appeal to emotion by wishful thinking, ad nauseam. You might want to look up Brooks's Law.
        teachingassist 6y ago
        If you're demanding sources but haven't provided any of your own, you're simply trolling. Look up Brooks's Law yourself. It begins with "under certain conditions", none of which apply here.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I'm not trolling. You could have redacted your unsupported comment, making this chain moot. And do you have any points for why the exceptions to those circumstances would apply here? Or are you just stating that as fact, like the rest of your argument? It seems like you are relying on the fallacy fallacy (yes that's a real thing) - don't bother proving your own opinion, just say that mine is wrong because you think I have a fallacy.

codefined 6y ago

It feels like it's about direct / indirect issues. If to buy a gas powered car I had to go out and shoot somebody, I doubt we'd have nearly as many cars around. Air pollution kills 7 million people a year[0]. That's not including other forms of pollution. I also feel nobody is arguing to cancel everything immediately. They're arguing to stop building new coal power plants when there are alternatives. They're arguing for increased taxes on companies that produce pollution so that they have motivation to reduce their external effects. Etc. [0] https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf https://www.who.int/phe/eNews_63.pdf

127 6y ago

What if I told you, you can't dumb toxic sewage on my backyard anymore because it's causing serious health problems? What if I said the same thing about all toxic sewage dumping on peoples back yards? Because I feel that the toxic sewage dumping on peoples backyards is a problem, can I force you to abandon all toxic sewage dumping despite the massive financial costs and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? The rest is non-sequitur.

fny 6y ago

This might be more palatable: Say you are a developing country. The US comes to you and says we're going to restrict trade until you get your carbon footprint in line. This is, of course, being done for your own good (you're an agricultural nation after all--climate change will scorch your exports!) by countries who have dumped carbon into the atmosphere for centuries while they were industrializing. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international-climate-cooperation-might-require-carbon-tariffs/ https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international...

gus_massa 6y ago
1) You close the local steel smelter that use a lot of CO2 and produce the steel you sell to the US. 2) You start a campaign to eliminate agricultural subsidies globally and also make them reforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#Deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D... so they must buy your agricultural products at a higher price. 3) They invade you.
mdiesel 6y ago
At the moment, the incentives are all aligned with us keeping the 3rd world as it is for as long as possible. IMO we need to recognise that the rhetoric of it being "our fault" doesn't sell well, right or wrong. We need to change to saying that it's in our interests to help the rest of the world change quickly. Better still would be to make it in everyone's financial interests to do so that incentives are back aligned with the best outcome for the planet. We need to continue the R&D we're doing, and give away the research so that the nations currently industrialising can skip over that step. There are social issues as well, industrialisation of Britain was a major driver behind democratising the country and enabling social mobility, so it's hard to rush that as well.
SCHiM 6y ago
Who cares about the optics of it? We now know it's bad, that type of whataboutism is the most destructive and dumb kind that exists. Serously we should just pay for their solar panels, windfarms and reactors and be done with it.

YorickPeterse 6y ago

> What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans? I don't have a car, so that's fine. Also there's this thing called "an electric car". You should look it up :) > What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes? I'm not sure where this "it's either A or B" mindset comes from, but it's not a particular intelligent one. Just because we need to stop destroying our environment doesn't mean we have to stop doing _everything_ that involves fossil fuels. Long term maybe, but not necessarily all at once. > Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future? When given the choice between no fossil fuels and no Earth, I think the choice is easy. Fortunately we're not quite there yet, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.