6 ms·
Probably just a coincidence! We probably shouldn't inconvenience ourselves in the slightest amount to mitigate these coincidences. Anything that might damage
by mmazing 4y ago
Probably just a coincidence!
We probably shouldn't inconvenience ourselves in the slightest amount to mitigate these coincidences.
Anything that might damage profits, impact billionaires, or hurt shareholders of our best gigantic businesses isn't something we should consider.
Hopefully my seething sarcasm came through all of that bullshit.
- colineartheta 4y agoAn interesting conclusion.
- MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago> Anything that might damage profits, impact billionaires, or hurt shareholders of our best gigantic businesses isn't something we should consider. You’re unfairly omitting how fossil fuels have lifted billions out of poverty. Stopping climate change also lowers standards of living.
- arrosenberg 4y agoThats a fallacious argument. Low and no carbon sources of electricity have been available since the 1920s. We could have reduced poverty without relying on the vast (and quite wasteful) quantities of fossil fuels that we did. This future is the result of a series of choices made to the financial benefit of a select few.
- Aloha 4y agoEven if the electric car cannot replace the ICE one, I cannot think of a good reason to burn fossil fuel for base load generation. We have hydro, we have nuclear, we have solar, and we have wind - at least two of those are dandy at base load generation, the other two act as good peaking sources. Cheaper is no longer good justification.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fomine3 4y agoSmall islands far from continents/big islands? Maybe no space to hydro, nuclear isn't an option, solar and wind is not stable.
- gjulianm 4y agoHow much energy do islands spend compared to the rest of the world? Of course there will be some places where fossil fuels will be the only alternative. But using that as an excuse for inaction in the parts where we do have alternatives does not make sense.
- fomine3 4y agoYes fair point.
- adrianN 4y agoSolar+wind+storage is stable.
- nradov 4y agoOnly with huge amounts of storage. So far there are no large, industrialized areas which have managed to build enough storage to maintain base load through multiple days of little sunshine or wind. It's a nice idea in theory but costs will have to come way down before we can afford to deploy storage at scale (especially in areas where the geography makes pumped hydroelectric impractical).
- adrianN 4y agoCurrently we're talking about small islands. But why would an industrialized area built enough storage now if we don't have enough supply? Germany for example gets about 40-50% of its electricity from renewables (averaged over a year), with hardly any storage. Yet only a few percent of the renewable supply are wasted. We're very far away from getting 50% of our primary energy from renewables, so we could plausibly wait with building storage until that goal is achieved. If we had a proper carbon price, we could let the market figure out when it is most economical to start building storage for multiple days...
- mjburgess 4y agoDoes it help you somehow to believe in this good vs. evil narrative? It isnt true. Feeding 7bn people today requires the energy density (etc.) of fossil fuels; let alone what the 20th C. required to bring people out of poverty. The idea that you're going to bring 1bn people in the developing world out of poverty, in the manner of the late 20th C., by building "low carbon" sources of energy in the 60s,etc. in those very poor regions is ridiculous.
- arrosenberg 4y agoWhat about my statement implied a good vs evil narrative? It is factually true, and given the vastly superior energy density of nuclear fuels, I think it’s odd to tout fossil fuels as distinctly important for power generation.
- mjburgess 4y ago7bn are fed because of tractors, not baseload electrical generation input into electrical grids which dont exist in many countries, and many many more in the 20th C.
- arrosenberg 4y ago…because we chose to pursue fossil fuels instead of focusing on low carbon sources and electrical distribution. Tractors can run on electricity, so can Haber-Bosch. Wasn’t required to choose the high carbon future, but it was profitable for some people.
- nradov 4y agoThat is simply false, and displays a stunning ignorance of history and engineering. The low carbon source of electricity available in the 1920s was mainly just hydroelectric. It was only possible to build such power plants in a few limited locations, and the electricity generated couldn't be transmitted very far. Electricity also couldn't practically be used for most transportation, except a limited set of rail lines or short range vehicles. The only way to rapidly industrialize and lift people out of dire poverty was to burn fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. Now that we have built up a sufficient economic surplus we can gradually transition to a more sustainable future.
- StanislavPetrov 4y agoThat's true if we continue to insist on squeezing as many billions of people onto the planet as possible. If we aimed at having a sustainable global population we could stop man-made climate change (as opposed to the naturally changing climate that plunges us into ice-ages periodically) without condemning billions to poverty.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> man-made climate change (as opposed to the naturally changing climate that plunges us into ice-ages periodically) We're in one of those ice ages right now.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoInteresting to see the downvotes. Compare wikipedia: > An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age ) > geologists describe the entire time period [from 2.58 million years ago] up to the present as an "ice age" > Since planet Earth still has ice sheets, geologists consider the Quaternary glaciation to be ongoing, with the Earth now experiencing an interglacial period. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation ) Until the polar ice caps have disappeared, we're in an ice age by definition. There is of course an obvious implication that the naturally-changing climate periodically takes us out of ice ages, too.
- fallingfrog 4y agoTechnically correct but deceptive; we are in an interglacial period in a larger ice age
- kzrdude 4y agoFossil fuel has also enabled a population explosion which fuels the coming crisis. Much harder to get inside planetary boundaries when so many people need to share the finite resources. I.e. populations of any organism grow to consume the available resources unfortunately.
- adrianN 4y agoNo, stopping climate change doesn't lower standards of living. Why is it a lower standard of living if I get my electricity from renewable or nuclear power? Why is a lower standard of living if my car is electric? Why is it a lower standard of living if my home is heated with a heat pump? Stopping climate change is strictly necessary if we want to keep our current standard of living.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoEverything you named is a drop in a huge bucket. Drive electric? Stopping climate change would require massive infrastructure changes at this point. How about no car at all? Creating and improving that infrastructure takes decades. Same goes for other things. Imports vs eating seasonal and buying local. Frequent (transatlantic) flights vs staying at home. More frugality with what we have, less frequent changes in tech, clothing, household products, etc. People try to hold onto the status quo for dear life, not realizing that's the very thing keeping us from solving the issue. Or any future issue we can't just get a few scientists to solve for the lazy masses.
- adrianN 4y agoElectricity, heat, and transport is about 70% of our emissions. Another 20% or so is agriculture. We can get rid of the 70% without any change to our lifestyles at all.
- blfr 4y agoI don't think eliminating electricity, heating, and transport would have no impact on my lifestyle. Or anyone's lifestyle.
- adrianN 4y agoHow about replacing fossil fuels with carbon free fuels. You know, like everyone who is talking seriously about climate change is proposing, instead of the strawman of going back to the stone age?
- atoav 4y agoYou needing an amputation after an accident also lowers your standard of living. But guess what: the alternative is even worse.
- _ph_ 4y agoYes, fossil fuels have powered the industrial revolution. But for some time already we were at a point, where it is more beneficial to switch to renewable power. Going forward, renewables are the way of preventing poverty, not trying to stick to fossil fuels. It is the people with low income, which get hit worst by climate change.
- MaxHoppersGhost 4y agoYeah? Let’s tell all of Africa to switch to renewables. I’ll let you deliver the news and see how that goes.
- rejor121 4y agoWhereas not stopping climate change will also lower standards of living. Deadly so!
- MaxHoppersGhost 4y agoSounds like you bought into the fear mongering.