5 ms·

The whole global economy is built around cheap energy sources that also happen to be at least 100 times more efficient than solar, wind, or even nuclear. Petrol

The whole global economy is built around cheap energy sources that also happen to be at least 100 times more efficient than solar, wind, or even nuclear. Petroleum is BY FAR the most efficient way of storing energy. Wind and solar power are both intermittent. That's fine if you live in a coastal city in a temperate zone, but most people in the world do not. So efficient energy storage becomes a huge problem. And we have two main timecycles for which we have to store energy: capturing it during the day and releasing it at night (to charge all those EVs) and also capturing it during the summer and releasing it over the winter. That would require longer-term storage AND while we can capture the most energy during the summer, that's also the highest period of use because the world is now also air-conditioned. If you end petroleum production, that also ends all plastic production. So all the cheap gewgaws from China disappear. Also, did you know that solar panels are made from firing coal and quartz together at high temperatures? Do you know why they're all made in China? Because of much less strict environmental regulations there. Did you also know that solar panels have a lifespan of only 15-20 years, and that they're not recyclable? I could go on and on, but there's no magic "alternative energy source" that even comes close to being able to provide stable power at a cost that comes anywhere close to petroleum, not to mention how portable petroleum is as an energy source. Nuclear power is the only thing that even comes close, but it's fraught with trouble as well. You think there will be solar-powered shipping vessels? Trains are electric, but you know what runs the electric motors on them? The on-board diesel generators! The global economy is based on cheap energy sources. Increase the cost and reduce the availability of the energy sources and yeah, you'll destroy the economy.

adamrezich 4y ago
> Increase the cost and reduce the availability of the energy sources and yeah, you'll destroy the economy. more and more it seems like outright nihilism has led to many people being in the mindset of "And That's A Good Thing!" these people not only think privately but announce publicly that they don't have any interest in having children specifically because they don't think it's Morally Right to produce and raise children in this Intractably Fallen World we live in today. after all, as everyone knows, western civilization is built upon colonial expansionism, slavery, white supremacy, bigotry, etc. etc., and even the good things it's produced like democracy are outweighed by the civilization-ending threat of climate catastrophe that it directly wrought! therefore, let us ignore the civilizational advances our forefathers fought and died for, because on the whole, our entire society is built upon foundations of moral abhorrence! let it all burn, and all of us with it—we deserve it. and all of this nihilistic depression and anxiety about the entire global state of the world we live in all started relatively recently in human history, which makes one wonder what exactly caused it—was it completely organic or subversively intentional? because idk about you but if I was a competing world superpower and I wanted to set out to destroy my competition discretely, these last couple decades of getting the middle to lower rungs of society to turn on itself in every which way imaginable, all while discouraging optimism and exceptionalism in a downright institutional manner, would be exactly how I would go about it. I used to be a fan of Doctorow when I was downloading his free ebooks & converting them to iPod notes format to read in class in high school. it's a bummer to see that he's lining up with the rest of the "we're all gonna die"-types, singing the song of the end of the world to the masses—it's pretty much impossible for me to respect anyone who takes that tack.
majormajor 4y ago
So then how about you get onboard with fighting for what I said, not the other position you're arguing against. The one that's called "technology development." Invest in alternatives, capture solutions, etc so that they get better faster. It's the same thing we've done in wartime, or for a moon mission. The global economy was based on other things than it is today 30, 70, 150, 200, etc years ago. Shit changes. Steer the change instead of sitting back and being defeatist about the side effects of the most recent ones. Plenty of people don't want to destroy the world to save it. Do you think your "let's just do nothing because uncertainty exists, let's just let the world destroy itself without bothering to learn more or try new things" pseudo-concern is better?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Indeed. In the words of Bobby Shaftoe (Cryptonomicon) "Show some fucking adaptability."
  - prometheus76 4y ago
  - majormajor 4y ago
    The (already-dead, so I can't reply directly to it) response from 'prometheus76 is telling here, so I think it's worth preserving to expose the fakeness of this whole "what if the costs are higher than the benefits" posturing: "But I thought humans were not adaptable to climate change? Isn't that the panic?" After all that hand-wringing about "destroying the world economy" you'd think that "adapting to climate change" would not be the bar for them. "Adapting without economic harm" would be. Even if you frame it purely economically and don't care about lives lost, the economic cost of things like rising temperatures and sea levels is easily calculable as being enormous. That precious petro-heavy global economy depends massively on infrastructure on today's coast, for starters. This is just "I disagree with making any efforts entirely but I've given up on being able to convince people that the efforts aren't needed, so I'll just try to claim they're too expensive instead by arguing against a worst-faith interpretation of what we could possibly try to do."
ryukafalz 4y ago
> If you end petroleum production, that also ends all plastic production. Bioplastics exist. We need better ways to deal with them at end-of-life (industrial composting is not yet widespread) but they aren’t petroleum-based. > Trains are electric, but you know what runs the electric motors on them? The on-board diesel generators! Not if you electrify the network. And in fact, in the US we used to have over 5x as much electrified track in the 1930s as we do now.
- blooalien 4y ago
  Also, it's not petroleum production that's the biggest problem really (even though as you say, plastics do have more and more viable alternatives available these days), but rather the burning of petroleum products as a fuel source that seems to be the major problem re; climate change.

adamrezich 4y ago

> Increase the cost and reduce the availability of the energy sources and yeah, you'll destroy the economy. more and more it seems like outright nihilism has led to many people being in the mindset of "And That's A Good Thing!" these people not only think privately but announce publicly that they don't have any interest in having children specifically because they don't think it's Morally Right to produce and raise children in this Intractably Fallen World we live in today. after all, as everyone knows, western civilization is built upon colonial expansionism, slavery, white supremacy, bigotry, etc. etc., and even the good things it's produced like democracy are outweighed by the civilization-ending threat of climate catastrophe that it directly wrought! therefore, let us ignore the civilizational advances our forefathers fought and died for, because on the whole, our entire society is built upon foundations of moral abhorrence! let it all burn, and all of us with it—we deserve it. and all of this nihilistic depression and anxiety about the entire global state of the world we live in all started relatively recently in human history, which makes one wonder what exactly caused it—was it completely organic or subversively intentional? because idk about you but if I was a competing world superpower and I wanted to set out to destroy my competition discretely, these last couple decades of getting the middle to lower rungs of society to turn on itself in every which way imaginable, all while discouraging optimism and exceptionalism in a downright institutional manner, would be exactly how I would go about it. I used to be a fan of Doctorow when I was downloading his free ebooks & converting them to iPod notes format to read in class in high school. it's a bummer to see that he's lining up with the rest of the "we're all gonna die"-types, singing the song of the end of the world to the masses—it's pretty much impossible for me to respect anyone who takes that tack.

majormajor 4y ago

So then how about you get onboard with fighting for what I said, not the other position you're arguing against. The one that's called "technology development." Invest in alternatives, capture solutions, etc so that they get better faster. It's the same thing we've done in wartime, or for a moon mission. The global economy was based on other things than it is today 30, 70, 150, 200, etc years ago. Shit changes. Steer the change instead of sitting back and being defeatist about the side effects of the most recent ones. Plenty of people don't want to destroy the world to save it. Do you think your "let's just do nothing because uncertainty exists, let's just let the world destroy itself without bothering to learn more or try new things" pseudo-concern is better?

jacquesm 4y ago
Indeed. In the words of Bobby Shaftoe (Cryptonomicon) "Show some fucking adaptability."
- prometheus76 4y ago
- majormajor 4y ago
  The (already-dead, so I can't reply directly to it) response from 'prometheus76 is telling here, so I think it's worth preserving to expose the fakeness of this whole "what if the costs are higher than the benefits" posturing: "But I thought humans were not adaptable to climate change? Isn't that the panic?" After all that hand-wringing about "destroying the world economy" you'd think that "adapting to climate change" would not be the bar for them. "Adapting without economic harm" would be. Even if you frame it purely economically and don't care about lives lost, the economic cost of things like rising temperatures and sea levels is easily calculable as being enormous. That precious petro-heavy global economy depends massively on infrastructure on today's coast, for starters. This is just "I disagree with making any efforts entirely but I've given up on being able to convince people that the efforts aren't needed, so I'll just try to claim they're too expensive instead by arguing against a worst-faith interpretation of what we could possibly try to do."

ryukafalz 4y ago

> If you end petroleum production, that also ends all plastic production. Bioplastics exist. We need better ways to deal with them at end-of-life (industrial composting is not yet widespread) but they aren’t petroleum-based. > Trains are electric, but you know what runs the electric motors on them? The on-board diesel generators! Not if you electrify the network. And in fact, in the US we used to have over 5x as much electrified track in the 1930s as we do now.

blooalien 4y ago
Also, it's not petroleum production that's the biggest problem really (even though as you say, plastics do have more and more viable alternatives available these days), but rather the burning of petroleum products as a fuel source that seems to be the major problem re; climate change.