3 ms·

I'm confused. There are people with fossil fuels. They want to make money from their access to fossil fuels. They will strive to do so, and some of them will

I'm confused. There are people with fossil fuels. They want to make money from their access to fossil fuels. They will strive to do so, and some of them will strive without concern for the collective good. I think those things are clear. If fossil fuels are burned for energy, that contributes directly to climate change. If those fossil fuels are converted into plastics which are put in landfills, that directly contributes less to climate change. I hope that all of the above is uncontroversial. Where I get confused is this: Do you think that reducing demand for plastic will result in less fossil fuels being burned? Do you think that reducing demand for non-burning-uses of fossil fuels will result in so much less production of fossil fuels that the overall price of oil-for-burning will go up? I'm no economist, but your claim is the exact opposite of how I thought it works. Can you explain?

munk-a 4y ago
Fossil fuels are complex materials and the refining process breaks crude up into several different compounds, these compounds have different uses with the base materials for most plastics being an, essentially, useless side effect of fuel production. It's less a question of taking a barrel of oil and turning it into a hunk of plastic or a can of fuel. Both are produced in the most efficient processes.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I'm not making a claim about the price of oil for burning rising though. I'm saying the money spent on noncombusted fossil fuels funds climate change denial just as much as the burned stuff does. Is it the carbon that's the problem or the groups that have prevented a carbon fee being enacted for decades that is the problem?
- dmurray 4y ago
  > Is it the carbon that's the problem or the groups that have prevented a carbon fee being enacted for decades that is the problem? The carbon. It's definitely the carbon. If we collectively stop having economic incentives to burn fossil fuels, the political side will sort itself out. We could improve the economics either by having cheaper alternative energy supply like solar power, or more expensive demand like plastics, or imposing an externality like a policeman who comes and slaps you every time you burn 1 BTU of hydrocarbons.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    So you recognize that the carbon is bad for us collectively, and you think we'd be fine if the incentives were sorted out. So you're agreeing with me? But you think the 'politics' is easy once we have renewables or carbon fees imposed via legislation. Let's all hope that none of those things became very political around 3 decades ago, because that would be bad. And then wed be in a weird catch-22 were we can only do the easy bits once we sort the politics out.

munk-a 4y ago

Fossil fuels are complex materials and the refining process breaks crude up into several different compounds, these compounds have different uses with the base materials for most plastics being an, essentially, useless side effect of fuel production. It's less a question of taking a barrel of oil and turning it into a hunk of plastic or a can of fuel. Both are produced in the most efficient processes.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I'm not making a claim about the price of oil for burning rising though. I'm saying the money spent on noncombusted fossil fuels funds climate change denial just as much as the burned stuff does. Is it the carbon that's the problem or the groups that have prevented a carbon fee being enacted for decades that is the problem?

dmurray 4y ago
> Is it the carbon that's the problem or the groups that have prevented a carbon fee being enacted for decades that is the problem? The carbon. It's definitely the carbon. If we collectively stop having economic incentives to burn fossil fuels, the political side will sort itself out. We could improve the economics either by having cheaper alternative energy supply like solar power, or more expensive demand like plastics, or imposing an externality like a policeman who comes and slaps you every time you burn 1 BTU of hydrocarbons.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  So you recognize that the carbon is bad for us collectively, and you think we'd be fine if the incentives were sorted out. So you're agreeing with me? But you think the 'politics' is easy once we have renewables or carbon fees imposed via legislation. Let's all hope that none of those things became very political around 3 decades ago, because that would be bad. And then wed be in a weird catch-22 were we can only do the easy bits once we sort the politics out.