4 ms·

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to re

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. > Burning fossil fuels is bad. Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling productivity. > Shell needs to leave that business in the very long term. No, they don't NEED to do that. Well, not until the government mandates it anyway. And that's the problem. Perhaps they will leave the business, but they shouldn't until renewable energy becomes more economical than producing fossil fuels. In the meantime, it makes more sense to move production to developing countries so they have the same opportunity we had here to benefit from cheap energy.

zackees 5y ago
To add to this... the government killed the alternative which was nuclear. If the government were serious about ending CO2 emissions they should start building a massive number of nuclear. Hitting Shell like this is a disaster of policy.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Thanks for that! I do try and pick my comparisons and words carefully. I sometimes fail miserably but i'm glad you picked up on it.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  There's an argument for storing carbon as finished wood products.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    But that was not even a tangential side point of mine. To my mind it was just a pertinent comparison. I'll bear in mind what you said but i'm slightly disappointed.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      I agree that it is tangential. Perhaps one of the safer topics to discuss in this whole debacle.
yholio 5y ago
> trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. What the hell? Trees grow using CO2 from the air, and then release that same carbon back when the wood is burned or rots in a forest somewhere. Conserving trees does nothing for climate except for a very small amount of carbon sequestered by tropical forests in their soil. Meanwhile, oil is 100% carbon that has not been in atmosphere since Jurasic times. If you like Jurasic climates, I guess that's perfectly fine.
brendanmc6 5y ago
> the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers Sorry, this is one of the worst takes on climate I've ever seen on HN, and the bar here is very low... Take time to actually study the problem and you will come to the same conclusion: it can only be solved with government intervention. The most efficient government intervention would be a carbon tax set at the estimated social cost of carbon, but that (being a tax) is also extremely politically unpopular. So we are left with less efficient policies, like outright bans, court orders, expensive subsidies, and emissions caps.

zackees 5y ago

To add to this... the government killed the alternative which was nuclear. If the government were serious about ending CO2 emissions they should start building a massive number of nuclear. Hitting Shell like this is a disaster of policy.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

>His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Thanks for that! I do try and pick my comparisons and words carefully. I sometimes fail miserably but i'm glad you picked up on it.

aww_dang 5y ago
There's an argument for storing carbon as finished wood products.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  But that was not even a tangential side point of mine. To my mind it was just a pertinent comparison. I'll bear in mind what you said but i'm slightly disappointed.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    I agree that it is tangential. Perhaps one of the safer topics to discuss in this whole debacle.

yholio 5y ago

> trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. What the hell? Trees grow using CO2 from the air, and then release that same carbon back when the wood is burned or rots in a forest somewhere. Conserving trees does nothing for climate except for a very small amount of carbon sequestered by tropical forests in their soil. Meanwhile, oil is 100% carbon that has not been in atmosphere since Jurasic times. If you like Jurasic climates, I guess that's perfectly fine.

brendanmc6 5y ago

> the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers Sorry, this is one of the worst takes on climate I've ever seen on HN, and the bar here is very low... Take time to actually study the problem and you will come to the same conclusion: it can only be solved with government intervention. The most efficient government intervention would be a carbon tax set at the estimated social cost of carbon, but that (being a tax) is also extremely politically unpopular. So we are left with less efficient policies, like outright bans, court orders, expensive subsidies, and emissions caps.