6 ms·

On negative externalities - if we don't change our course, practically every facet of our daily lives will continue to be dependent on petrochemical solids for

On negative externalities - if we don't change our course, practically every facet of our daily lives will continue to be dependent on petrochemical solids for long after we switch completely to electric vehicles and renewable energy. Plastic in my eyes is basically petro byproducts 'blitzscaled' to all layers of the economy, all the way down to the literal bloodstreams of all living organisms.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I’ve had the fortune of working in industries that most people don’t see the back end of… Like it or not; we will use every drop of oil there is, one way or another. I wouldn’t bet against oil companies even if all cars were electric by means of a genie.
- Gare 4y ago
  It seems only 4% of the World oil/gas production is used for plastics. https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx
  - blamazon 4y ago
    Good lord, all the plastic in the world being four percent of oil and gas production is terrifying. Implying the rest basically ends up combusted into the atmosphere? The fact that increasing the percentage of oil and gas used for plastic looks like a good option by comparison turns my stomach.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      The wonder composites that make electric cars possible are all oil. Carbon fiber is hilariously not-green to produce. Make a tube out of oil and burn it over and over. Now make a car out of it with zero chance to recycle and talk about how green it is. Two things to your post though. Yes, making things out of oil is probably better than burning it. But don’t mistake how much oil is used in the side-processes. We will burn the oil one way or another. Until there is a better source of energy with better safety and density than hydrocarbons, we’ll use it all. If not in cars, in power plants, if not there in military, if not there in 3rd world, etc.
      - omg_ponies 4y ago
        > The wonder composites that make electric cars possible are all oil. I'm sure composites make electric cars better, but I don't think electric cars are impossible without composites.
    - Tao3300 4y ago
      Not sure how much winds up in cosmetics, cleaners, lubricants and stuff.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Synthesized replacements (starting from plant stocks or whatever) will probably be cheaper at some point. Like some point in the next several decades, not in the far flung future.
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    That feels like it might be possible, but we would have to stop subsidizing corn in favor of plants with markedly better yields (eg switchgrass). That will require significant political capital.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      It would just require a market for switchgrass.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  The same was likely said of whale blubber 150 years ago.
  - Tao3300 4y ago
    And we almost used all of it then.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      But still managed to avoid hunting any species to worldwide extinction - so perhaps there's some hope.
into_infinity 4y ago
This laundry basket is an example of externalities being quite reasonable, though. It lasted 20+ years and that's not an outlier for items like this. I'd wager that making it out of anything else would have a worse environmental impact. Metal is far more energy-intensive. Fabric is far less durable. Throwaway plastics are far more of a problem, although the scale of the problem is often overstated for ideological reasons. For example, we're not at risk of running out of landfill space; and while plastics in the ocean are worth fixing, but there's little evidence that they're destroying ecosystems or harming health. Plastics are essentially a distraction. The vast majority of emissions that actually harm the environment come from other industries, but these problems are less tractable, so we get preoccupied washing yogurt cups and banning plastic straws instead.
- blamazon 4y ago
  Fair point on the posted laundry basket being a win. But it is undeniable that it's so inexpensive because of all the plastic that was disposed. We also didn't see all the identical laundry baskets that went straight into landfill. I do understand real life landfills aren't like Wall-E, but in that film they certainly didn't run out of landfill space and it wasn't a utopia. On the second point, I don't find it too convincing that I don't have to worry about plastics in my blood, my children's blood, their children's blood, because we don't understand it very well yet. And on the ocean plastic, that's just the tip of the iceberg that we can see and talk about easily. The real thing that's killing ecosystems en masse is not at the output end of the system, but on the input end. Global reliance on petrochemicals, industrial pesticides derived thereby, etc. I'm a scuba diver and I've watched reefs die with my own eyes. I just can't shake the feeling we are on course to strip the planet of billions of years of biodiversity and in 1000 years whoever is left will regard the decisions of our time w.r.t. resource extraction as catastrophically stupid. But I do acknowledge how this is idealogical and emotionally based as you point out, and I can agree to disagree. My friends tell me: we won't be alive in 1000 years, so who cares? That doesn't sit well with me, but I get it. Edit: noticed your edit and agree a lot with that point!
  - Swizec 4y ago
    > to strip the planet of billions of years of biodiversity and in 1000 years whoever is left will regard the decisions of our time w.r.t. resource extraction as catastrophically stupid About 300 years ago Europe was mostly stripped bare of forests. It helped us get to the point where we can say “Wow that was stupid”. Now we use forests less (thanks to coal and later oil) and Europe is regrowing most of them. Yes ecosystems were impacted and biodiversity changed … now it’s slowly coming back. On the scale of millions of years this event is largely invisible. > As a result, during the period 1750-1850 forests in Central Europe had been decimated, causing a serious lack of timber. Some contemporary reports even spoke partly of desert-like landscapes at that time. During the late 19th and 20th centuries a huge amount of artificial reforestation was implemented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Central_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Cen... > The area of forest in the EU increased by almost 10 % in 1990–2020; with the largest relative increase in Ireland (by 69 %) and largest absolute increase in Spain (by 4.7 million ha). Estimated 63 % of the net annual increment of timber in EU forests was logged in 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
Denvercoder9 4y ago
> will continue to be dependent on petrochemical solids for long after we switch completely to electric vehicles and renewable energy Does anyone have insight in what the negative effects here are, if any? It feels like this should be problematic, but I just can't put my finger on what problems this is creating. Like e.g. extracting oil to create single-use plastics that get put in a landfill after usage: it sounds bad, but what's actually the problem (assuming the whole process is done without burning any of the oil - which afaik is possible)?
- blamazon 4y ago
  To me it's at the root just an ethical capital allocation problem. We can split hairs about specifics but it's hard to argue Petro is interested in the common good, it's obviously interested in making money from oil extraction, common good be damned. I'd much rather incentivize a very different, more ethical form of industrial practice. More efficient, more local, less tragic commons. More locally recycled paper bags and food that comes in banana leaves. Less single use plastics that are generally impossible to recycle locally. More bike lanes and more transit, two things oil companies are traditionally villainous about lobbying against. Fewer oil spills, less tanker mileage. Less land allocated to vast chemical plants. More carbon tax. Etc. As long as we're hooked on the conveniences of plastic and gas stoves, it will be difficult to achieve a Star Trek type future.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

I’ve had the fortune of working in industries that most people don’t see the back end of… Like it or not; we will use every drop of oil there is, one way or another. I wouldn’t bet against oil companies even if all cars were electric by means of a genie.

Gare 4y ago
It seems only 4% of the World oil/gas production is used for plastics. https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx
- blamazon 4y ago
  Good lord, all the plastic in the world being four percent of oil and gas production is terrifying. Implying the rest basically ends up combusted into the atmosphere? The fact that increasing the percentage of oil and gas used for plastic looks like a good option by comparison turns my stomach.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    The wonder composites that make electric cars possible are all oil. Carbon fiber is hilariously not-green to produce. Make a tube out of oil and burn it over and over. Now make a car out of it with zero chance to recycle and talk about how green it is. Two things to your post though. Yes, making things out of oil is probably better than burning it. But don’t mistake how much oil is used in the side-processes. We will burn the oil one way or another. Until there is a better source of energy with better safety and density than hydrocarbons, we’ll use it all. If not in cars, in power plants, if not there in military, if not there in 3rd world, etc.
    - omg_ponies 4y ago
      > The wonder composites that make electric cars possible are all oil. I'm sure composites make electric cars better, but I don't think electric cars are impossible without composites.
  - Tao3300 4y ago
    Not sure how much winds up in cosmetics, cleaners, lubricants and stuff.
maxerickson 4y ago
Synthesized replacements (starting from plant stocks or whatever) will probably be cheaper at some point. Like some point in the next several decades, not in the far flung future.
- fbdab103 4y ago
  That feels like it might be possible, but we would have to stop subsidizing corn in favor of plants with markedly better yields (eg switchgrass). That will require significant political capital.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    It would just require a market for switchgrass.
wizofaus 4y ago
The same was likely said of whale blubber 150 years ago.
- Tao3300 4y ago
  And we almost used all of it then.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    But still managed to avoid hunting any species to worldwide extinction - so perhaps there's some hope.

into_infinity 4y ago

This laundry basket is an example of externalities being quite reasonable, though. It lasted 20+ years and that's not an outlier for items like this. I'd wager that making it out of anything else would have a worse environmental impact. Metal is far more energy-intensive. Fabric is far less durable. Throwaway plastics are far more of a problem, although the scale of the problem is often overstated for ideological reasons. For example, we're not at risk of running out of landfill space; and while plastics in the ocean are worth fixing, but there's little evidence that they're destroying ecosystems or harming health. Plastics are essentially a distraction. The vast majority of emissions that actually harm the environment come from other industries, but these problems are less tractable, so we get preoccupied washing yogurt cups and banning plastic straws instead.

blamazon 4y ago
Fair point on the posted laundry basket being a win. But it is undeniable that it's so inexpensive because of all the plastic that was disposed. We also didn't see all the identical laundry baskets that went straight into landfill. I do understand real life landfills aren't like Wall-E, but in that film they certainly didn't run out of landfill space and it wasn't a utopia. On the second point, I don't find it too convincing that I don't have to worry about plastics in my blood, my children's blood, their children's blood, because we don't understand it very well yet. And on the ocean plastic, that's just the tip of the iceberg that we can see and talk about easily. The real thing that's killing ecosystems en masse is not at the output end of the system, but on the input end. Global reliance on petrochemicals, industrial pesticides derived thereby, etc. I'm a scuba diver and I've watched reefs die with my own eyes. I just can't shake the feeling we are on course to strip the planet of billions of years of biodiversity and in 1000 years whoever is left will regard the decisions of our time w.r.t. resource extraction as catastrophically stupid. But I do acknowledge how this is idealogical and emotionally based as you point out, and I can agree to disagree. My friends tell me: we won't be alive in 1000 years, so who cares? That doesn't sit well with me, but I get it. Edit: noticed your edit and agree a lot with that point!
- Swizec 4y ago
  > to strip the planet of billions of years of biodiversity and in 1000 years whoever is left will regard the decisions of our time w.r.t. resource extraction as catastrophically stupid About 300 years ago Europe was mostly stripped bare of forests. It helped us get to the point where we can say “Wow that was stupid”. Now we use forests less (thanks to coal and later oil) and Europe is regrowing most of them. Yes ecosystems were impacted and biodiversity changed … now it’s slowly coming back. On the scale of millions of years this event is largely invisible. > As a result, during the period 1750-1850 forests in Central Europe had been decimated, causing a serious lack of timber. Some contemporary reports even spoke partly of desert-like landscapes at that time. During the late 19th and 20th centuries a huge amount of artificial reforestation was implemented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Central_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Cen... > The area of forest in the EU increased by almost 10 % in 1990–2020; with the largest relative increase in Ireland (by 69 %) and largest absolute increase in Spain (by 4.7 million ha). Estimated 63 % of the net annual increment of timber in EU forests was logged in 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Denvercoder9 4y ago

> will continue to be dependent on petrochemical solids for long after we switch completely to electric vehicles and renewable energy Does anyone have insight in what the negative effects here are, if any? It feels like this should be problematic, but I just can't put my finger on what problems this is creating. Like e.g. extracting oil to create single-use plastics that get put in a landfill after usage: it sounds bad, but what's actually the problem (assuming the whole process is done without burning any of the oil - which afaik is possible)?

blamazon 4y ago
To me it's at the root just an ethical capital allocation problem. We can split hairs about specifics but it's hard to argue Petro is interested in the common good, it's obviously interested in making money from oil extraction, common good be damned. I'd much rather incentivize a very different, more ethical form of industrial practice. More efficient, more local, less tragic commons. More locally recycled paper bags and food that comes in banana leaves. Less single use plastics that are generally impossible to recycle locally. More bike lanes and more transit, two things oil companies are traditionally villainous about lobbying against. Fewer oil spills, less tanker mileage. Less land allocated to vast chemical plants. More carbon tax. Etc. As long as we're hooked on the conveniences of plastic and gas stoves, it will be difficult to achieve a Star Trek type future.