5 ms·

We need to stop extracting fossil fuels from the ground. Period. Any other solution is just a gimmick. Unfortunately, the rate of extraction hasn't slowed. It's

We need to stop extracting fossil fuels from the ground. Period. Any other solution is just a gimmick. Unfortunately, the rate of extraction hasn't slowed. It's increased, or, at best, stayed relatively flat. The outcome, of course, will be quite predictable. All of this "green" technology we've produced hasn't made an iota of a difference, yet, in terms of the actual problem. Maybe it will soon? Let's hope.

sieabahlpark 4y ago
Retric 4y ago
Increased electricity efficiency kept US coal extraction steady from 1998 @24.1 exajoules to 2008 @23.9 exajoules. Green technology then help drop that to 14.3 exajoules in 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265452/coal-production-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265452/coal-production-i... Globally industrialization and increased economic activity hides these improvements, but without green technology things would be much worse.
- michaelbuckbee 4y ago
  A lot of this offset is natural gas displacing coal (still an improvement) but not great long term https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/natural-gas-use-is-rising-is-that-good-news-or-bad-news-for-the-climate/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/natural-ga...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    Total fossil fuel use for electricity production is also down significantly in the US. 9,616 kWh per person in 2008 to 7,861 kWh in 2019.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Unfortunately, other sources of fossil fuel extraction have only grown in the US: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production?co... Looking at that graph, it looks like a mirror: the more coal decreased recently, the more other fossil fuel extraction increased. This goes back to my original point: The rate of fossil fuel extraction is the only metric that matters. And it's not going down in any meaningful way, is it? Hopefully soon, but I'm doubtful.
  - Retric 4y ago
    US Production is largely a meaningless graph as exports and imports are critical. The US has become a significant exporter of Natural Gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas.webp In terms of electricity, net fossil fuel use per person is also down significantly from 9,616 kWh per person in 2008 to 7,861 kWh in 2019. Gasoline is fairly steady and responds to economic activity, from 141 billion gallons in 2004 to 134 in 2012 and back up to 146 in 2019. That looks slightly better when you consider the 12% population increase from 2004.
    - boplicity 4y ago
      Strangely, the climate doesn't care at all how many people there are. No matter how much the emissions drop per person, if they're not dropping overall, then no progress has been made. We're in just as bad of a situation as we've ever been. This is no way looks good -- the scale of the problem is so immense, and progress on the only metric that actually matters continues to be non-existent. On a global scale, worldwide production of fossil fuels is not going down. I fail to see any evidence that this is being fixed. Maybe someday the various technologies will converge in a way that fixes the issue -- but I doubt it.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Good thing you’re misinformed. The US released 6.13 Billion tons of CO2 in 2007 down to 5.26 billion tons in 2019. 2020 and 2021 are even lower but that’s from the pandemic. Global trends are more troublesome, but coal peaked in 2013 and it’s use has declined from 44,993 TWH in 2013 to 43,839 in 2019. Anyway, per person numbers are critical for understanding trends. Infrastructure ages, the average US power plant is over 41 years old in 2020. The industry is essentially running off a huge cliff, which is less obvious when you look at year over year production. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-of-existing-coal-power-plants-in-selected-regions-in-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-o... In China on the other hand the average coal power plant is 11, that infrastructure is likely going to be around for decades. Long term the rest of the world is catching up developed economies, but what that meant in 2006 looked much worse than what that means today.
starkd 4y ago
We stop extracting it and we're back in the 19th century. The whole economy runs on the stuff. From energy extraction to product development involving anything made of plastic. That's not going to change any time soon. That's the cold hard fact. We are already starting to see some of the consequences of scarcity of energy in farmers not being able to get enough fertilizer to grow the crops. The Ukraine crisis is largely about energy availability which could lead to 100 million people in Africa and elsewhere facing food shortages. These policy changes have consequences.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  If we don't stop extracting it we'll be back in the stone age at some point.
  - starkd 4y ago
    I've been hearing that for the past 40 years in some form or other. How many times did we only have 10 years left? At some point, you have to question why you assume they are right when they have been wrong so many times. And who is profiting from your panic?
    - RalfWausE 4y ago
      Look out of the fucking window and you see, that climate change is happening RIGHT NOW. Look at India, look at Africa...
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      False alarms are false alarms until they're not. The evidence for climate change is so abundant that debate about whether it is happening or not is pointless, nobody was 'wrong so many times', we are pretty much on track for a pretty massive adjustment. The question isn't 'if' but 'when' and as far as I understand it the point at which we could have taken meaningful action is already past. Which is the way these things go: "we should do nothing because it is so far into the future", "we should do nothing because it is too expensive and affects our lifestyle too much and besides it doesn't affect us, but only our children", "we should do nothing because we're already past the point of no return". You are somewhere in the middle, and I'm already at the third stage but still believe we should do something because it might take the edge of. Sticking your head in the sand certainly isn't going to help.
zip1234 4y ago
If anything, countries should stop fossil fuels as a matter of their own security. The Russia situation alone should be a wakeup call for Europe. E-bikes, electric cars, solar, electrified rail, and heat pump systems should be a top priority for every country for that reason alone.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I agree but it's impossible. Right now, my electricity bill was 3x what it has been over the last few years for last month because of Russia and this is in the greenest country in the world (highest investment and generation per capita[1]). We are extremely fucking fucked. If we can't do it, you can't do it. We're ahead of you (the U.S.) by a factor of 4.3. If you try to do this, you will starve. Am I wrong? What's the plan? 1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per...
  - zip1234 4y ago
    As you point out, the status quo is very much not ideal. Being dependent on oil/gas means being part of a global commodity market and refusing to buy Russian oil does nothing as some other country will still buy it. My point is national security is enough reason alone to move off from oil and thus it should a matter of security for a country to do so.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > and refusing to buy Russian oil does nothing as some other country will still buy it Yeah I've been saying this for months but people refuse to get it. I can't even get people to the point where they'll rebut that Russian oil is at least discounted; they don't even admit the chain exists. > My point is national security is enough reason alone to move off from oil and thus it should a matter of security for a country to do so. Okay, fair enough and I agree.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
scoofy 4y ago
Nobody cares... most people are completely ignorant to what is going to happen, so nobody fucking cares. I was in college in '99 taking earth science, thinking people were reasonable. I took up cycling as transit at the time and cut down sharply on meat consumption. I assumed i was getting a head start on the changing infrastructure. I fought hard for transit-alternatives in Austin... left the city when they ditched the bicycle master-plan to build an express lane on the freeway. I fought for transit alts in NYC, and they've seen a bunch of progress, and I'm fighting for the same in SF now, also seeing slow progress. To this day, the vast majority of people are so deeply dependent on fossil fuels, the asks put forward are considered unacceptable. How do we run AC in Texas? How do we convince people to, not just build up, but to build anything. How do we turn suburbs into commuter towns? How do we convert interstate highways into high-speed rail. How do we convince people that meat should be a special occasion food, not the basis for every meal. The concept of a carbon tax is so, so obvious, but people have built their lives around carbon every second of every day. We can't even solve the fucking duck curve for electric generation even though getting batteries in every home is an easy solution. I'm so jaded at this point, but I'll never give up fighting for mitigation, even if it seems so fucking impossible. I have my plans in place to move to places that will likely benefit from the changes... but that's just the world we live in.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Same here. Built a solar/wind powered off grid house. The only people interested were people that were forced to live off grid simply because the grid didn't reach where they lived and renewable energy hobbyists, people in it mostly for the tech, not to actually switch their dependency or coming from a motivation of sustainability (though there were a couple like that). Interestingly enough this is now seeing something of a revival because energy prices have been steadily rising. But indeed, jaded is the term. I've pretty much given up, I could no longer justify making all these changes while around me everybody is partying like it's 1999, yes, I'm an idealist and would love for people to wake up but I don't have the energy to be a living example for decades without any meaningful impact. I still try to drive as little as possible and do the bulk of my trips on the e-bike but I'm not going to overdo it and I'm happy to take the car when it rains. Frustrating, but ultimately a few people are not going to be able to convince a public that 100's of times larger that they should change their ways when society's momentum is still moving the other way, and politicians will not move until they feel that such a move will land well with their electorate. We've made a lot of changes in spite of all that, too little, too late, but given the amount of headwind I still consider that an impressive result. The dutch have a proverb 'the ship will be turned by the shore', if you don't change course in time then your course will be changed for you, but then by main force. It would have been better to avoid that but apparently collectively we only really learn the hard way. Which is a pity because if humanity would resolve its differences amicably and start pulling in the same direction for a change this place could be paradise, for all of us instead of just for a select few.
jacquesm 4y ago
> All of this "green" technology we've produced hasn't made an iota of a difference, yet, in terms of the actual problem. It has, without all the green tech we'd be in even worse shape.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Currently it also is an extremely profitable business again while prices for fossil fuels dropped significantly in the years before. So you either mandate it internationally, which has a very low chance of being accepted, or you at least try to reduce consumption.

sieabahlpark 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

Increased electricity efficiency kept US coal extraction steady from 1998 @24.1 exajoules to 2008 @23.9 exajoules. Green technology then help drop that to 14.3 exajoules in 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265452/coal-production-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265452/coal-production-i... Globally industrialization and increased economic activity hides these improvements, but without green technology things would be much worse.

michaelbuckbee 4y ago
A lot of this offset is natural gas displacing coal (still an improvement) but not great long term https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/natural-gas-use-is-rising-is-that-good-news-or-bad-news-for-the-climate/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/natural-ga...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  Total fossil fuel use for electricity production is also down significantly in the US. 9,616 kWh per person in 2008 to 7,861 kWh in 2019.
boplicity 4y ago
Unfortunately, other sources of fossil fuel extraction have only grown in the US: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-production?co... Looking at that graph, it looks like a mirror: the more coal decreased recently, the more other fossil fuel extraction increased. This goes back to my original point: The rate of fossil fuel extraction is the only metric that matters. And it's not going down in any meaningful way, is it? Hopefully soon, but I'm doubtful.
- Retric 4y ago
  US Production is largely a meaningless graph as exports and imports are critical. The US has become a significant exporter of Natural Gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas.webp In terms of electricity, net fossil fuel use per person is also down significantly from 9,616 kWh per person in 2008 to 7,861 kWh in 2019. Gasoline is fairly steady and responds to economic activity, from 141 billion gallons in 2004 to 134 in 2012 and back up to 146 in 2019. That looks slightly better when you consider the 12% population increase from 2004.
  - boplicity 4y ago
    Strangely, the climate doesn't care at all how many people there are. No matter how much the emissions drop per person, if they're not dropping overall, then no progress has been made. We're in just as bad of a situation as we've ever been. This is no way looks good -- the scale of the problem is so immense, and progress on the only metric that actually matters continues to be non-existent. On a global scale, worldwide production of fossil fuels is not going down. I fail to see any evidence that this is being fixed. Maybe someday the various technologies will converge in a way that fixes the issue -- but I doubt it.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Good thing you’re misinformed. The US released 6.13 Billion tons of CO2 in 2007 down to 5.26 billion tons in 2019. 2020 and 2021 are even lower but that’s from the pandemic. Global trends are more troublesome, but coal peaked in 2013 and it’s use has declined from 44,993 TWH in 2013 to 43,839 in 2019. Anyway, per person numbers are critical for understanding trends. Infrastructure ages, the average US power plant is over 41 years old in 2020. The industry is essentially running off a huge cliff, which is less obvious when you look at year over year production. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-of-existing-coal-power-plants-in-selected-regions-in-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-o... In China on the other hand the average coal power plant is 11, that infrastructure is likely going to be around for decades. Long term the rest of the world is catching up developed economies, but what that meant in 2006 looked much worse than what that means today.

starkd 4y ago

We stop extracting it and we're back in the 19th century. The whole economy runs on the stuff. From energy extraction to product development involving anything made of plastic. That's not going to change any time soon. That's the cold hard fact. We are already starting to see some of the consequences of scarcity of energy in farmers not being able to get enough fertilizer to grow the crops. The Ukraine crisis is largely about energy availability which could lead to 100 million people in Africa and elsewhere facing food shortages. These policy changes have consequences.

jacquesm 4y ago
If we don't stop extracting it we'll be back in the stone age at some point.
- starkd 4y ago
  I've been hearing that for the past 40 years in some form or other. How many times did we only have 10 years left? At some point, you have to question why you assume they are right when they have been wrong so many times. And who is profiting from your panic?
  - RalfWausE 4y ago
    Look out of the fucking window and you see, that climate change is happening RIGHT NOW. Look at India, look at Africa...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    False alarms are false alarms until they're not. The evidence for climate change is so abundant that debate about whether it is happening or not is pointless, nobody was 'wrong so many times', we are pretty much on track for a pretty massive adjustment. The question isn't 'if' but 'when' and as far as I understand it the point at which we could have taken meaningful action is already past. Which is the way these things go: "we should do nothing because it is so far into the future", "we should do nothing because it is too expensive and affects our lifestyle too much and besides it doesn't affect us, but only our children", "we should do nothing because we're already past the point of no return". You are somewhere in the middle, and I'm already at the third stage but still believe we should do something because it might take the edge of. Sticking your head in the sand certainly isn't going to help.

zip1234 4y ago

If anything, countries should stop fossil fuels as a matter of their own security. The Russia situation alone should be a wakeup call for Europe. E-bikes, electric cars, solar, electrified rail, and heat pump systems should be a top priority for every country for that reason alone.

guerrilla 4y ago
I agree but it's impossible. Right now, my electricity bill was 3x what it has been over the last few years for last month because of Russia and this is in the greenest country in the world (highest investment and generation per capita[1]). We are extremely fucking fucked. If we can't do it, you can't do it. We're ahead of you (the U.S.) by a factor of 4.3. If you try to do this, you will starve. Am I wrong? What's the plan? 1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per...
- zip1234 4y ago
  As you point out, the status quo is very much not ideal. Being dependent on oil/gas means being part of a global commodity market and refusing to buy Russian oil does nothing as some other country will still buy it. My point is national security is enough reason alone to move off from oil and thus it should a matter of security for a country to do so.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > and refusing to buy Russian oil does nothing as some other country will still buy it Yeah I've been saying this for months but people refuse to get it. I can't even get people to the point where they'll rebut that Russian oil is at least discounted; they don't even admit the chain exists. > My point is national security is enough reason alone to move off from oil and thus it should a matter of security for a country to do so. Okay, fair enough and I agree.
    - jacquesm 4y ago

scoofy 4y ago

Nobody cares... most people are completely ignorant to what is going to happen, so nobody fucking cares. I was in college in '99 taking earth science, thinking people were reasonable. I took up cycling as transit at the time and cut down sharply on meat consumption. I assumed i was getting a head start on the changing infrastructure. I fought hard for transit-alternatives in Austin... left the city when they ditched the bicycle master-plan to build an express lane on the freeway. I fought for transit alts in NYC, and they've seen a bunch of progress, and I'm fighting for the same in SF now, also seeing slow progress. To this day, the vast majority of people are so deeply dependent on fossil fuels, the asks put forward are considered unacceptable. How do we run AC in Texas? How do we convince people to, not just build up, but to build anything. How do we turn suburbs into commuter towns? How do we convert interstate highways into high-speed rail. How do we convince people that meat should be a special occasion food, not the basis for every meal. The concept of a carbon tax is so, so obvious, but people have built their lives around carbon every second of every day. We can't even solve the fucking duck curve for electric generation even though getting batteries in every home is an easy solution. I'm so jaded at this point, but I'll never give up fighting for mitigation, even if it seems so fucking impossible. I have my plans in place to move to places that will likely benefit from the changes... but that's just the world we live in.

jacquesm 4y ago
Same here. Built a solar/wind powered off grid house. The only people interested were people that were forced to live off grid simply because the grid didn't reach where they lived and renewable energy hobbyists, people in it mostly for the tech, not to actually switch their dependency or coming from a motivation of sustainability (though there were a couple like that). Interestingly enough this is now seeing something of a revival because energy prices have been steadily rising. But indeed, jaded is the term. I've pretty much given up, I could no longer justify making all these changes while around me everybody is partying like it's 1999, yes, I'm an idealist and would love for people to wake up but I don't have the energy to be a living example for decades without any meaningful impact. I still try to drive as little as possible and do the bulk of my trips on the e-bike but I'm not going to overdo it and I'm happy to take the car when it rains. Frustrating, but ultimately a few people are not going to be able to convince a public that 100's of times larger that they should change their ways when society's momentum is still moving the other way, and politicians will not move until they feel that such a move will land well with their electorate. We've made a lot of changes in spite of all that, too little, too late, but given the amount of headwind I still consider that an impressive result. The dutch have a proverb 'the ship will be turned by the shore', if you don't change course in time then your course will be changed for you, but then by main force. It would have been better to avoid that but apparently collectively we only really learn the hard way. Which is a pity because if humanity would resolve its differences amicably and start pulling in the same direction for a change this place could be paradise, for all of us instead of just for a select few.

jacquesm 4y ago

> All of this "green" technology we've produced hasn't made an iota of a difference, yet, in terms of the actual problem. It has, without all the green tech we'd be in even worse shape.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Currently it also is an extremely profitable business again while prices for fossil fuels dropped significantly in the years before. So you either mandate it internationally, which has a very low chance of being accepted, or you at least try to reduce consumption.