3 ms·

This is mostly just political posturing on the part of the Democratic Party, which as far as I can tell is not any more interested in halting US fossil fuel pro

This is mostly just political posturing on the part of the Democratic Party, which as far as I can tell is not any more interested in halting US fossil fuel production than the Republican party is. In fact, not a single country with large oil and gas reserves and an active export industry wants to see their revenue collapse due to something like an international ban on the trade in fossil fuels - and this is true regardless of their political ideology, i.e. capitalism vs socialism or authoritarian theocracy or whatever. Venezuela, the United States, Norway, Iran, Russia, Saudi & UAE, etc. all want to keep running their export programs for the next three decades at least. I mean, in the USA the Obama Administration oversaw the fracking boom for eight years and now that's the basis of the LNG exports to Europe. As far as tracking the big polluters, that's more misdirection. Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place? This is not rocket science, just basic accounting. The end result is the same, here's a model of the yearly cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04 If countries had really wanted to slow fossil-fueled global warming, they'd have started a 1% per year replacement program (renewables for fossil fuels) in the 1980s, and we'd be at a ~40% renewable ~60% fossil energy mix by now (at least). As it stands today, every single fossil fuel company and nation-state producer is looking to maintain current production levels for the next 30 years, if they can manage it. Enough with the hypocrisy and two-faced posturing at these 'global climate meetups', already. Finally, this 'hope' business is ridiculous. The tipping point has come and gone, there are numerous global carbon models and observational data showing that even with 100% renewables tomorrow, warming will steadily continue due to permafrost melt and carbon outgassing from marine sediments. The last time CO2 levels were this high was in the Pliocene, ~2-5 million years ago, and that's where the climate is heading. Hence, human civilization will just have to adapt to these new conditions, which will be difficult and expensive and disruptive. However, since noticeable changes in climate (i.e. clearly distinguishable from the noise in the data) only appear on a ~10 year running average, this could be accomplished, with massive infrastructure projects. However, making efforts to adapt to new conditions would require admitting that fossil fuels drive global warming, which would create more pressure to switch to renewables, and that would be resisted by entrenched economic interests... sort of a Catch-22 situation.

mistrial9 4y ago
thoughtful but too simplistic -- each industrial economy is filled with PRO and ANTI forces for the last decades.. the superficial unity is actually enforced by game rules underneath.. conflicts internally are daily. Its obvious now that the game rules give "decision makers" a very large lever to enforce status quo, while entrepreneurial and protest forces socially and economically bubble away.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I should probably have mentioned that it's the countries that have to import gas and oil, and which only have reserves of low-grade fossil fuels (i.e. coal) that are most active in developing non-fossil energy production (i.e. China, Japan, Germany). Africa is an interesting possibility, as there just isn't enough fossil fuel around to fuel industrial development there to the levels seen in the USA/Europe/Asia, meaning large-scale renewable is their only real option. For example, California alone consumes about 2 million barrels of oil per day, with a population of 40 million people. Global oil production is about 90 million barrels per day. There are 1.1 billion people across the sub-Saharan Africa belt (Nigeria to Somalia). Assuming I've done the basic math right, and accounting for African oil use at present, if Africa were to consume as much oil per capita as California does, this would require an additional ~50 million barrels per day in global oil production, a greater than 50% increase.
dan_mctree 4y ago
>Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place If you can avoid waste at the refineries and the fields, less fossil fuels will have to be dig up to fulfill the same demand. Of course waste is an important issue to tackle. Sure, lowering demand or restricting supply may do more, but waste is often a relatively easy thing to tackle.

mistrial9 4y ago

thoughtful but too simplistic -- each industrial economy is filled with PRO and ANTI forces for the last decades.. the superficial unity is actually enforced by game rules underneath.. conflicts internally are daily. Its obvious now that the game rules give "decision makers" a very large lever to enforce status quo, while entrepreneurial and protest forces socially and economically bubble away.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I should probably have mentioned that it's the countries that have to import gas and oil, and which only have reserves of low-grade fossil fuels (i.e. coal) that are most active in developing non-fossil energy production (i.e. China, Japan, Germany). Africa is an interesting possibility, as there just isn't enough fossil fuel around to fuel industrial development there to the levels seen in the USA/Europe/Asia, meaning large-scale renewable is their only real option. For example, California alone consumes about 2 million barrels of oil per day, with a population of 40 million people. Global oil production is about 90 million barrels per day. There are 1.1 billion people across the sub-Saharan Africa belt (Nigeria to Somalia). Assuming I've done the basic math right, and accounting for African oil use at present, if Africa were to consume as much oil per capita as California does, this would require an additional ~50 million barrels per day in global oil production, a greater than 50% increase.

dan_mctree 4y ago

>Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place If you can avoid waste at the refineries and the fields, less fossil fuels will have to be dig up to fulfill the same demand. Of course waste is an important issue to tackle. Sure, lowering demand or restricting supply may do more, but waste is often a relatively easy thing to tackle.