7 ms·

I love how people who drive cars, fly on planes, use plastic, get goods delivered by truck, etc etc, act like oil companies just pump oil out of the ground for

I love how people who drive cars, fly on planes, use plastic, get goods delivered by truck, etc etc, act like oil companies just pump oil out of the ground for fun then light it on fire. The mental gymnastics are impressive.

toiletfuneral 5y ago
Nobody who travels ‘wants’ to burn oil. Capital decided oil is the most profitable way to deliver that. There was never a point where individual personal consumption habits could have changed this course.
- 542458 5y ago
  It’s profitable because it’s physically efficient - fossil fuels are readily available and highly energy dense and relatively safe. Nothing else offers that. This isn’t some sneaky capitalist plot - the soviets burned lots of fuel as well. I’m not defending the continued dependence on fossil fuels, but let’s be realistic about how (externalities aside) fossil fuels are very, very good at what they do. The problem is those externalities have turned out to be pretty bad, and our economic systems have been slow to respond.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > fossil fuels are readily available and highly energy dense and relatively safe. Nothing else offers that. Your car or plane can't tell the difference between fossil hydrocarbons and biofuel hydrocarbons. (Though you might adjust a car to use ethanol instead of longer compounds.)
    - andi999 5y ago
      Does it still take 1l of (subsidized) fossil fuel to produce 1l of biofuel?
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > One of the most often cited results from Sheehan et al. is that the fossil energy ratio of biodiesel is equal to 3.2. In other words, biodiesel yields 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed over its life- cycle. > Recently, a 5.54 fossil energy ratio (FER) was reported [1] which means one unit of fossil energy input is required to produce 5.54 units of biodiesel energy output. This FER shows a stunning energy return of biodiesel that surpasses other fuels [2]. Seems fine. And that's probably without even trying to use all electric equipment.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    > The problem is those externalities have turned out to be pretty bad, and our economic systems have been slow to respond. The problems are much more specific and blatant than that: * The externalities were known to be bad by the oil companies and this knowledge was suppressed. * Our economic system is incapable of responding because there is no direct fiscal cost of the externalities that would make alternatives cheaper at the point-of-purchase decision point. * Fossil fuels being good at what they do is exactly why external regulation is needed to get us out of that unhealthy addiction.
    - 542458 5y ago
      I entirely agree. Strong carbon taxes or other similar systems are the way forward. By correcting for the true cost of pollution we can allow renewables to really shine. I was only trying to push back against the idea that we’re only using fossil fuels because of capitalism. We’re using fossil fuels because with our initial naive inspection they appear to be an excellent, bordering on miraculous, resource. I’m not denying that they’ve turned out to be very harmful and/or that people have done bad things to preserve the naive interpretation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
barbazoo 5y ago
Well, some of us might drive electric cars, don't fly if they don't absolutely have to, avoid single use plastics, shop locally and in bulk, etc, etc Or at least some of us do some of those things. We don't all have to live perfectly carbon neutral lives before we can demand action on a political level or criticize organizations that are actively trying to keep the status quo for as long as possible to maximize their profits.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
Big changes need government intervention. The government needs to take away the option to run cars, trucks, etc on gasoline, and restrict flights that don't use renewable energy (such as via Hydrogen). Otherwise the individual can only do a very little, and often can't afford to do that.
- sharemywin 5y ago
  or at least require the cost of putting carbon back into the ground to be factor price. The problem is when you slow gdp it's the most marginalized that are hit the hardest. So, the CEO only makes 10M instead of 50M(or whatever number) but what about the poor farmer that was making just enough to run his tractor to get by and feed his family.
  - JulianMorrison 5y ago
    Carbon externality pricing is another attempt at market intervention that faceplants in practise. It doesn't get properly implemented, because it's politically unpopular, it gets fudged with highly speculative green-washing "offsets" that amount to planting a few trees and then counting your forests before they're grown (the trees subsequently die of neglect), and the costs get passed on to the little guy. The correct approach is to outright ban gasoline. There are cases where no alternative exists right now, such as flight. Those uses should be restricted away from casual use. Yes, this means no flying on holiday, until they get hydrogen airplanes up and running.
    - allemagne 5y ago
      Carbon pricing can't work because it's politically unpopular so the solution is to ban gasoline. Come on now.
      - JulianMorrison 5y ago
        You'd be surprised, but an all-in solution can be easier to sell than a mealy mouthed half-solution.

toiletfuneral 5y ago

Nobody who travels ‘wants’ to burn oil. Capital decided oil is the most profitable way to deliver that. There was never a point where individual personal consumption habits could have changed this course.

542458 5y ago
It’s profitable because it’s physically efficient - fossil fuels are readily available and highly energy dense and relatively safe. Nothing else offers that. This isn’t some sneaky capitalist plot - the soviets burned lots of fuel as well. I’m not defending the continued dependence on fossil fuels, but let’s be realistic about how (externalities aside) fossil fuels are very, very good at what they do. The problem is those externalities have turned out to be pretty bad, and our economic systems have been slow to respond.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > fossil fuels are readily available and highly energy dense and relatively safe. Nothing else offers that. Your car or plane can't tell the difference between fossil hydrocarbons and biofuel hydrocarbons. (Though you might adjust a car to use ethanol instead of longer compounds.)
  - andi999 5y ago
    Does it still take 1l of (subsidized) fossil fuel to produce 1l of biofuel?
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > One of the most often cited results from Sheehan et al. is that the fossil energy ratio of biodiesel is equal to 3.2. In other words, biodiesel yields 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed over its life- cycle. > Recently, a 5.54 fossil energy ratio (FER) was reported [1] which means one unit of fossil energy input is required to produce 5.54 units of biodiesel energy output. This FER shows a stunning energy return of biodiesel that surpasses other fuels [2]. Seems fine. And that's probably without even trying to use all electric equipment.
- majormajor 5y ago
  > The problem is those externalities have turned out to be pretty bad, and our economic systems have been slow to respond. The problems are much more specific and blatant than that: * The externalities were known to be bad by the oil companies and this knowledge was suppressed. * Our economic system is incapable of responding because there is no direct fiscal cost of the externalities that would make alternatives cheaper at the point-of-purchase decision point. * Fossil fuels being good at what they do is exactly why external regulation is needed to get us out of that unhealthy addiction.
  - 542458 5y ago
    I entirely agree. Strong carbon taxes or other similar systems are the way forward. By correcting for the true cost of pollution we can allow renewables to really shine. I was only trying to push back against the idea that we’re only using fossil fuels because of capitalism. We’re using fossil fuels because with our initial naive inspection they appear to be an excellent, bordering on miraculous, resource. I’m not denying that they’ve turned out to be very harmful and/or that people have done bad things to preserve the naive interpretation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

barbazoo 5y ago

Well, some of us might drive electric cars, don't fly if they don't absolutely have to, avoid single use plastics, shop locally and in bulk, etc, etc Or at least some of us do some of those things. We don't all have to live perfectly carbon neutral lives before we can demand action on a political level or criticize organizations that are actively trying to keep the status quo for as long as possible to maximize their profits.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

Big changes need government intervention. The government needs to take away the option to run cars, trucks, etc on gasoline, and restrict flights that don't use renewable energy (such as via Hydrogen). Otherwise the individual can only do a very little, and often can't afford to do that.

sharemywin 5y ago
or at least require the cost of putting carbon back into the ground to be factor price. The problem is when you slow gdp it's the most marginalized that are hit the hardest. So, the CEO only makes 10M instead of 50M(or whatever number) but what about the poor farmer that was making just enough to run his tractor to get by and feed his family.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  Carbon externality pricing is another attempt at market intervention that faceplants in practise. It doesn't get properly implemented, because it's politically unpopular, it gets fudged with highly speculative green-washing "offsets" that amount to planting a few trees and then counting your forests before they're grown (the trees subsequently die of neglect), and the costs get passed on to the little guy. The correct approach is to outright ban gasoline. There are cases where no alternative exists right now, such as flight. Those uses should be restricted away from casual use. Yes, this means no flying on holiday, until they get hydrogen airplanes up and running.
  - allemagne 5y ago
    Carbon pricing can't work because it's politically unpopular so the solution is to ban gasoline. Come on now.
    - JulianMorrison 5y ago
      You'd be surprised, but an all-in solution can be easier to sell than a mealy mouthed half-solution.