5 ms·

Depriving people of energy can be just as catastrophic. While not digging it up would be effective, I'm not sure some people in developing* country would neces

Depriving people of energy can be just as catastrophic. While not digging it up would be effective, I'm not sure some people in developing* country would necessarily agree. It's a complex topic, and Australia (where I live) has little excuse to still be using coal fired energy so much. Politics gets in the way of the obvious solutions. I don't particularly like attributing CO2 to the source. Unless we're going to stop counting CO2 emission internally, because the oil has been extracted elsewhere. edit: updated to developing, didn't realise the other was offensive. My apologies

gostsamo 4y ago
If you care about third-world countries, at least be polite enough to call them developing countries.
- StevenRayOrr 4y ago
  Developing into what?
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Exploitation machines just like big daddy united states. Unless they have resources we want ofc, then the CIA simply puts in a complicit dictator!
- mdp2021 4y ago
  'Third World' was coined - I believe, by Alfred Sauvy in 1952 (following Pascal Boniface) - as an expression to literally mean "non aligned in the dichotomy of NATO vs Warsaw pact affiliance". Stereotypes about qualities frequent in Countries of such /political/ quality (such as said alleged "need for development", following the poster) are not implied. 'Third' is proper for "non-aligned"; 'developing' when noting such state makes sense (special sense, since growth seems to be a shared goal); some other term for other cases - such as "rich in raw materials", etc.
  - gostsamo 4y ago
    I can come up with list of words that were coined with some intention and gained another. Why a term was created has nothing to do with how it is used and the gp comment wasn't in the context of the cold war history.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > list of words No need because that is the normal process, involving meaning and use - you could present the whole dictionary. But it is none of our business if suddenly one individual or a multitude start using 'mangrove' for something they decide, and it gives no toss of credential to those who after that decide that 'mangrove' does not mean "mangrove".
    - tremon 4y ago
      So you are aware that the word has multiple connotations, yet you chose to focus on the connotation that paints the GP in the worst light... why, exactly?
      - mikrotikker 4y ago
        An inherent need to be offended on behalf of others, in order to add some purpose to ones life.
      - gostsamo 4y ago
        Or I interpret it in the context it is used, referring to poor countries as third world. All this outrage about my remark is triggering my sense of irony. Too bad I'm social drinker only. PS: congrats to the gp who edited his comment.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        mdp2021 4y ago
        > Or I interpret it You declaredly interpreted it as «[im]polite» - different from "poorly chosen", if the readers do not have enough grounds to assume your irony to be triggered before the «outrage». In analytical terms, "Contries seeking independence may easily be reliant on key economic sources" makes sense.
- anshorei 4y ago
  The third in "third-world" has the same meaning as the third in "third-party cookies". They were the countries that aligned themselves with neither the liberal (first) or communist (second) worlds who were the principal parties to the cold war. I wish people would stop getting offended at things they don't understand.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > I wish people would stop getting offended at things they don't understand. What wasn't understood? If the term third-world was being used to talk about cold war political alignment, they wouldn't have objected. But that's not how it was being used. The objection was completely valid.
somewhereoutth 4y ago
With respect to CO2 emissions, it is quite simple. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is exactly correlated with the amount of fossil fuel dug up (modulo the proportion turned into plastics/whatever)
- finnh 4y ago
  People will deforest their surroundings and burn wood to keep warm.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    This has the same energy as saying, "If we ban nukes, then people will just TNT each other."
    - finnh 4y ago
      You think? People have to keep warm; they don't have to bomb each other. Anyway Europe is trying this wood instead of coal thing right now: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/eu-logging-wood-pellets.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/...
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Which is probably less harmful than burning oil. At least that forest can regrow in 50 years, whereas the oil will take millions of years to reform.
    - finnh 4y ago
      Yes, burning wood may be more sustainable in that lens. Whether it is less harmful is orthogonal. Heat pumps are efficient in ways that wood fires cannot be, for example, so oil -> electricity -> heat pump may well be far better for the atmosphere than "burn some wood".
    - nick__m 4y ago
      According to The Guardian wood produces more CO2 than other combustible per unit of heat¹. It also produces as much if not more soot than burning coal and a quantity of NOx and SOx comparable to the combustion of natural gaz.² It also produces copious amount of creosote a substance known to cause cancer to workers in wood treatment facilities.³ Mature trees that have reached a slower growth phase are better used as construction material, that way the carbon is sequestered for a long time and younger faster growing trees that replace them can transform CO2 again. 1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/01/pollutionwatch-wood-burning-is-not-climate-friendly https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/01/pollutio... 2) https://wood-energy.extension.org/what-are-the-air-emissions-of-burning-wood/ https://wood-energy.extension.org/what-are-the-air-emissions... 3) https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/creosote https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/creo...
tda 4y ago
No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Depriving your children with a future is on a whole other level. And that is exactly where we are heading: climate catastrophe leading to famine, drought, flooding, unmanageable sea level rise etc. People could do with a lot less energy 40 years ago, I'm sure we can get by just fine with a little less.
- nostrebored 4y ago
  Inconvenience is a very poor guess. Energy restriction kills people.
  - zaroth 4y ago
    More people than the climate, that’s for sure. Energy production levels must increase profoundly, while costs must fall. This is already happening, and not even that slowly in the grand scheme of things. Personal energy generation and storage is already cheaper than the grid as long as you can finance the upfront investment at a reasonable rate. I’ll say it until I’m, err, green in the face. Make clean energy cheaper and more abundant and it will be used. Make climate friendly products more compelling and cheaper than their dirtier substitutes, and the better products will win on the open market. Climate austerity is not so much “saving the future” but rather “murdering the poor” and I find it morally indefensible.
    - tda 4y ago
      No poor people will die from e.g. flying less, downsizing our cars or eating less meat. That is because the really poor (or perhaps half of all humans) don't fly, don't have cars and don't have a cheap meat based diet.
- tenpies 4y ago
  > depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Where do you live? I mean this rhetorically, because for a couple billion of people your definition of "minor inconvenience" is literally death. Ask a Canadian how inconvenient it is to go without heat in the winter. Ask an elderly Singaporean how inconvenient it is to go without AC in the summer.

gostsamo 4y ago

If you care about third-world countries, at least be polite enough to call them developing countries.

StevenRayOrr 4y ago
Developing into what?
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Exploitation machines just like big daddy united states. Unless they have resources we want ofc, then the CIA simply puts in a complicit dictator!
mdp2021 4y ago
'Third World' was coined - I believe, by Alfred Sauvy in 1952 (following Pascal Boniface) - as an expression to literally mean "non aligned in the dichotomy of NATO vs Warsaw pact affiliance". Stereotypes about qualities frequent in Countries of such /political/ quality (such as said alleged "need for development", following the poster) are not implied. 'Third' is proper for "non-aligned"; 'developing' when noting such state makes sense (special sense, since growth seems to be a shared goal); some other term for other cases - such as "rich in raw materials", etc.
- gostsamo 4y ago
  I can come up with list of words that were coined with some intention and gained another. Why a term was created has nothing to do with how it is used and the gp comment wasn't in the context of the cold war history.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > list of words No need because that is the normal process, involving meaning and use - you could present the whole dictionary. But it is none of our business if suddenly one individual or a multitude start using 'mangrove' for something they decide, and it gives no toss of credential to those who after that decide that 'mangrove' does not mean "mangrove".
  - tremon 4y ago
    So you are aware that the word has multiple connotations, yet you chose to focus on the connotation that paints the GP in the worst light... why, exactly?
    - mikrotikker 4y ago
      An inherent need to be offended on behalf of others, in order to add some purpose to ones life.
    - gostsamo 4y ago
      Or I interpret it in the context it is used, referring to poor countries as third world. All this outrage about my remark is triggering my sense of irony. Too bad I'm social drinker only. PS: congrats to the gp who edited his comment.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        > Or I interpret it You declaredly interpreted it as «[im]polite» - different from "poorly chosen", if the readers do not have enough grounds to assume your irony to be triggered before the «outrage». In analytical terms, "Contries seeking independence may easily be reliant on key economic sources" makes sense.
anshorei 4y ago
The third in "third-world" has the same meaning as the third in "third-party cookies". They were the countries that aligned themselves with neither the liberal (first) or communist (second) worlds who were the principal parties to the cold war. I wish people would stop getting offended at things they don't understand.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > I wish people would stop getting offended at things they don't understand. What wasn't understood? If the term third-world was being used to talk about cold war political alignment, they wouldn't have objected. But that's not how it was being used. The objection was completely valid.

somewhereoutth 4y ago

With respect to CO2 emissions, it is quite simple. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is exactly correlated with the amount of fossil fuel dug up (modulo the proportion turned into plastics/whatever)

finnh 4y ago
People will deforest their surroundings and burn wood to keep warm.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  This has the same energy as saying, "If we ban nukes, then people will just TNT each other."
  - finnh 4y ago
    You think? People have to keep warm; they don't have to bomb each other. Anyway Europe is trying this wood instead of coal thing right now: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/eu-logging-wood-pellets.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/...
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Which is probably less harmful than burning oil. At least that forest can regrow in 50 years, whereas the oil will take millions of years to reform.
  - finnh 4y ago
    Yes, burning wood may be more sustainable in that lens. Whether it is less harmful is orthogonal. Heat pumps are efficient in ways that wood fires cannot be, for example, so oil -> electricity -> heat pump may well be far better for the atmosphere than "burn some wood".
  - nick__m 4y ago
    According to The Guardian wood produces more CO2 than other combustible per unit of heat¹. It also produces as much if not more soot than burning coal and a quantity of NOx and SOx comparable to the combustion of natural gaz.² It also produces copious amount of creosote a substance known to cause cancer to workers in wood treatment facilities.³ Mature trees that have reached a slower growth phase are better used as construction material, that way the carbon is sequestered for a long time and younger faster growing trees that replace them can transform CO2 again. 1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/01/pollutionwatch-wood-burning-is-not-climate-friendly https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/01/pollutio... 2) https://wood-energy.extension.org/what-are-the-air-emissions-of-burning-wood/ https://wood-energy.extension.org/what-are-the-air-emissions... 3) https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/creosote https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/creo...

tda 4y ago

No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Depriving your children with a future is on a whole other level. And that is exactly where we are heading: climate catastrophe leading to famine, drought, flooding, unmanageable sea level rise etc. People could do with a lot less energy 40 years ago, I'm sure we can get by just fine with a little less.

nostrebored 4y ago
Inconvenience is a very poor guess. Energy restriction kills people.
- zaroth 4y ago
  More people than the climate, that’s for sure. Energy production levels must increase profoundly, while costs must fall. This is already happening, and not even that slowly in the grand scheme of things. Personal energy generation and storage is already cheaper than the grid as long as you can finance the upfront investment at a reasonable rate. I’ll say it until I’m, err, green in the face. Make clean energy cheaper and more abundant and it will be used. Make climate friendly products more compelling and cheaper than their dirtier substitutes, and the better products will win on the open market. Climate austerity is not so much “saving the future” but rather “murdering the poor” and I find it morally indefensible.
  - tda 4y ago
    No poor people will die from e.g. flying less, downsizing our cars or eating less meat. That is because the really poor (or perhaps half of all humans) don't fly, don't have cars and don't have a cheap meat based diet.
tenpies 4y ago
> depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Where do you live? I mean this rhetorically, because for a couple billion of people your definition of "minor inconvenience" is literally death. Ask a Canadian how inconvenient it is to go without heat in the winter. Ask an elderly Singaporean how inconvenient it is to go without AC in the summer.