3 ms·

I wish we had a more informed perspective on oil. Yes it’s very important that we move individual and public transportation to electric now that we have the bat

I wish we had a more informed perspective on oil. Yes it’s very important that we move individual and public transportation to electric now that we have the batteries to do so. Yes we need to switch energy production to renewables and zero carbon generation. Yes we need to get as much heat generation as possible for homes, commerce and industry switched to electric. All of these have in common the fact that we should not be burning oil. But, and this is a big but, we still need oil to produce a vast array of materials and compounds that our civilization depends on. Medicine and agriculture are two huge users that we cannot do without. We can’t shut down all oil production and drive the cost through the roof without destroying healthcare and creating famine. Please argue rationally, frame combustion of oil as wasteful while lionizing responsible usage that does not contribute to atmospheric CO2 and improves the human condition.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Alberta oil sands oil is the most expensive and dirtiest oil source on the planet. So when oil demand drops, the Alberta oil sands will be the first place to stop operating. Plastic will be made from the cheapest oil. It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil.
marricks 5y ago
The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from voices like yours which compromise themselves internally before even facing the opposing side. Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external pressure, would be gradual. That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down the next one that comes up. Etc etc. "Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all in the past 50 years. ========== EDIT: One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase in production, great subsidies. How did they do this? Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so nothing should change" It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was acting like they're already doing everything they can. Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly state truths and what should happen.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to compromise with you in return. You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the one you are giving. You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing arguments, or address points of criticism. If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to lose to status quo bias, from people who would just choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme position.
  - marricks 5y ago
    If I was the president I would explain how, without drastic changes, most species on earth will go extinct in the next 50 years and that humans could be one of them. Then I'd explain that we need to immediately change from fossil fuels. Then, only then, when negotiating with companies, governors, etc, we would get to the brass tacks of how, when, and what compromises could be need to make it happen. But we're both nobodies on a public forum arguing, why, oh why, should one start from a compromised position?
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      So you’re just going to contradict your reasoning about “of course nothing drastic will happen” by stating “if I were president there’d be drastic changes” in the same thread? This is exactly the superficiality I was arguing against. The only convincing you’re doing is that we shouldn’t listen to you.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Alberta oil sands oil is the most expensive and dirtiest oil source on the planet. So when oil demand drops, the Alberta oil sands will be the first place to stop operating. Plastic will be made from the cheapest oil. It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil.

marricks 5y ago

The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from voices like yours which compromise themselves internally before even facing the opposing side. Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external pressure, would be gradual. That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down the next one that comes up. Etc etc. "Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all in the past 50 years. ========== EDIT: One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase in production, great subsidies. How did they do this? Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so nothing should change" It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was acting like they're already doing everything they can. Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly state truths and what should happen.

stale2002 5y ago
> That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to compromise with you in return. You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the one you are giving. You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing arguments, or address points of criticism. If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to lose to status quo bias, from people who would just choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme position.
- marricks 5y ago
  If I was the president I would explain how, without drastic changes, most species on earth will go extinct in the next 50 years and that humans could be one of them. Then I'd explain that we need to immediately change from fossil fuels. Then, only then, when negotiating with companies, governors, etc, we would get to the brass tacks of how, when, and what compromises could be need to make it happen. But we're both nobodies on a public forum arguing, why, oh why, should one start from a compromised position?
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    So you’re just going to contradict your reasoning about “of course nothing drastic will happen” by stating “if I were president there’d be drastic changes” in the same thread? This is exactly the superficiality I was arguing against. The only convincing you’re doing is that we shouldn’t listen to you.