4 ms·

> Burning fossil fuels is bad. I would say that like many things in life, it's a tradeoff. There're costs and benefits to using these things. Talking about one

> Burning fossil fuels is bad. I would say that like many things in life, it's a tradeoff. There're costs and benefits to using these things. Talking about one side but not the other doesn't make sense. Quick personal example - I lived through energy shortages as a kid in the Soviet Union. Situations where there was no heat in the winter and/or no fuel for cars and public transport. From pure fossil fuel consumption standpoint, these were great times, as we weren't using any. From a quality and sustainability of human life, these were terrible times. At the very least "burning fossil fuels is bad" is a statement of privilege. A person who's cold or unable to travel or get necessities delivered would never say this. None of this is to say that we shouldn't move towards primarily nuclear in the long term - we should but we need to talk about this in a mature way.

kemitche 5y ago
> From a quality and sustainability of human life, these were terrible times. Unchecked, climate change will ALSO lead to terrible times for humans. Just because it's not immediately impactful, does not make it ignorable. From that perspective, it's arguable that our options are "Some amount of near-term lowering of quality of life" or "A large amount of long-term, in the future, loss of quality of life." Continuing to burn the levels of fossil fuels we currently do is borrowing against a debt that may be literally impossible to repay.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  I think you're saying essentially the same thing as the last paragraph of my post, so not sure why there's an argument. But sure, there's a long run place we want to get to. Today, we're not at that place and we're depending on fossil fuels. So why are we vilifying them and the companies that provide them? Sounds like we should simply work on replacements, like nuclear.
rkk3 5y ago
> At the very least "burning fossil fuels is bad" is a statement of privilege. A person who's cold or unable to travel or get necessities delivered would never say this. You could extend this argument "Slavery is bad", "Genocide is bad", "War is bad" etc. are all statements of "privilege". Completely ignoring climate change, particulate pollution from fossil fuels has killed a terrible amount of people and will continue to do so for some time. Currently its around 13,000 per year in the US.
- nradov 5y ago
  How many people would have died if they didn't have affordable access to power, heat, and transportation from fossil fuels? Particulate emissions are a risk but tighter emissions standards have done a lot to mitigate that problem.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Isn't there a difference between tradeoff's in the 1800's and 2021? The benefits of fossil fuels is not the issue, the cost is. If today we in fact have alternative's that do not inflict such a terrible cost on human life, is it incorrect to say the choice is "bad". The WHO estimates 7 million people a year are dying from air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1
  - kokanator 5y ago
    It could be argued that CO2 emitting fuels have propelled most world advancement we account to pulling countries into prosperity. It is necessary for any trade of goods with other countries for instance. Think ships for a minute, huge fuel consumers. Without them you wouldn't even have the computer you are reading this on. The course is to change culture so it collectively seeks alternative fuels not damn the corporation that has done the very thing we have asked them to do.
skeeter2020 5y ago
Most people equate reducing fossil fuels with buying an electric car or public transport. They are woefully oblivous to the impact on food production, bulk transport and shelter & heating impacts.
Isinlor 5y ago
The court ruling is mature, we need more decisions like that across the world. We also need to keep pushing and monitoring schemes like European Union Emission Trading Scheme and Chinese National Carbon Trading Scheme. The goal is for global carbon emissions to peak in 2030 and be gone by 2050. Hopefully USA will follow too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_trading_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

kemitche 5y ago

> From a quality and sustainability of human life, these were terrible times. Unchecked, climate change will ALSO lead to terrible times for humans. Just because it's not immediately impactful, does not make it ignorable. From that perspective, it's arguable that our options are "Some amount of near-term lowering of quality of life" or "A large amount of long-term, in the future, loss of quality of life." Continuing to burn the levels of fossil fuels we currently do is borrowing against a debt that may be literally impossible to repay.

xyzelement 5y ago
I think you're saying essentially the same thing as the last paragraph of my post, so not sure why there's an argument. But sure, there's a long run place we want to get to. Today, we're not at that place and we're depending on fossil fuels. So why are we vilifying them and the companies that provide them? Sounds like we should simply work on replacements, like nuclear.

rkk3 5y ago

> At the very least "burning fossil fuels is bad" is a statement of privilege. A person who's cold or unable to travel or get necessities delivered would never say this. You could extend this argument "Slavery is bad", "Genocide is bad", "War is bad" etc. are all statements of "privilege". Completely ignoring climate change, particulate pollution from fossil fuels has killed a terrible amount of people and will continue to do so for some time. Currently its around 13,000 per year in the US.

nradov 5y ago
How many people would have died if they didn't have affordable access to power, heat, and transportation from fossil fuels? Particulate emissions are a risk but tighter emissions standards have done a lot to mitigate that problem.
- rkk3 5y ago
  Isn't there a difference between tradeoff's in the 1800's and 2021? The benefits of fossil fuels is not the issue, the cost is. If today we in fact have alternative's that do not inflict such a terrible cost on human life, is it incorrect to say the choice is "bad". The WHO estimates 7 million people a year are dying from air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1
- kokanator 5y ago
  It could be argued that CO2 emitting fuels have propelled most world advancement we account to pulling countries into prosperity. It is necessary for any trade of goods with other countries for instance. Think ships for a minute, huge fuel consumers. Without them you wouldn't even have the computer you are reading this on. The course is to change culture so it collectively seeks alternative fuels not damn the corporation that has done the very thing we have asked them to do.

skeeter2020 5y ago

Most people equate reducing fossil fuels with buying an electric car or public transport. They are woefully oblivous to the impact on food production, bulk transport and shelter & heating impacts.

Isinlor 5y ago

The court ruling is mature, we need more decisions like that across the world. We also need to keep pushing and monitoring schemes like European Union Emission Trading Scheme and Chinese National Carbon Trading Scheme. The goal is for global carbon emissions to peak in 2030 and be gone by 2050. Hopefully USA will follow too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_trading_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...