3 ms·
1. Consumption is not moveable like that; you’re describing a process more akin to how manufacturing moves. The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able t
by ashtonkem 5y ago
1. Consumption is not moveable like that; you’re describing a process more akin to how manufacturing moves.
The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able to afford all this oil infrastructure if the richer nations stop consuming it. Especially if doing so reduces economies of scale.
2. From a global warming perspective, there is no such thing as an ethical jurisdiction to emit carbon from. Carbon is carbon, and it affects us all whether or not it comes with other forms of pollution.
- swader999 5y agoI should have worded that better. I meant production, if you read it carefully I think it still implies that but I should have been more clear. By ethical I mean human rights abuse, treatment of women and minorities. Why would you reward Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and punish a place like Western Canada?
- ashtonkem 5y agoThe issue is that there is a fixed supply of oil, and every drop that we pull out brings our species closer to extinction. I’d rather not reward Saudi, but I’d much more prefer to halt production of oil ASAP.
- swader999 5y agoWhat are you basing this off of? Climate models that can't pass back testing with historical data when they are started 5,10,20,30 years ago. Sea level rise the last 150 years has been between 1-3mm a year and rising since the end of the last ice age (24k years). Food production continues to rise, the planet is greener. Extreme weather events are not increasing. The winters in North America have slightly warmed the past 30 years. Less area burned every year. Humans will adapt just fine. I'll source all this later if you really want?