6 ms·

The biggest effect would be the negative one from manufacturing and replacing all those stoves. Gas stoves are a molecule in a drop in a bucket of climate chang

The biggest effect would be the negative one from manufacturing and replacing all those stoves. Gas stoves are a molecule in a drop in a bucket of climate change.

tcfhgj 3y ago
Every single thing is a drop in a bucket. Still the drops make a full bucket in the end
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Why do we frequently go after the drops that cause a lot of headache and inconvenience, then?
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    Because we have to go after all drops
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      How about we go after the coal power plants first? Or allow nuclear reactors on shipping vessels? Both of those will have 1000x more benefit than paper straws and electric stoves, whose benefits are questionable at best. There's plenty of lower-hanging fruit to go after.
      - tcfhgj 3y ago
        How about not, unless there is a reason why it is not possible to do multiple things in parallel?
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Because we're not doing the things that are truly impactful and have no cost to individuals, and instead focusing on changes that are annoying and useless. Plastic bags, plastic straws, gas stoves, the list goes on and on. All the while, the Germans have turned the coal power plants back on. That does not suggest that anyone is taking the environmental effects of their choices very seriously, and that they just want to lower peoples' standard of living and intrude on our lives. If that's what this is really about, then how about none of it? I'm sure you understand that if people continue getting inconvenienced in the name of climate change while governments and big corporations go on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at industrial scale, that's what's going to happen: instead of everyone making the changes they need to make, the vast majority of people will do nothing. The hypocrisy is not lost on anyone.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        You are free to participate politically if you think there are things needed to be done that aren't done. This is the way to stop governments (directly) and the industry (indirectly) reduce emissions. This can include elections, demonstrations, petitions, civil disobedience and more. Just keep in mind, things aren't always always that simple. E.g. Russia stopped shipping Germany gas, because they helped defending Ukraine which Russia started a war on. At the same time Germany relied on that Gas, and hat to quickly move to alternatives to keep the country running.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Thank you, and I do participate plenty. Part of that participation is calling out eco-hypocrisy, which seems to be the only thing that mainstream climate activists are good at. As to Germany, why did they rely on gas? Oh right, because they shut down their nuclear plants. So in the span of 3 years, Germany has gone from getting its base load from nuclear to gas to coal. If you really believe that atmospheric CO2 is an imminent threat to civilization, the tradeoffs are obvious and clearly biased in favor of ramping your nuclear industry significantly rather than hoping for a future breakthrough in battery technology that can allow you to run your base load off solar and wind. Like solar panels before they reached scale, this will start off as an incredibly expensive proposition, but it will get cheaper with scale. France seems to get it - they are building 50 new plants - but nobody else does. Instead of lobbying for impactful changes at this scale, we have plenty of activists going after ersatz plastic items, gas stoves, and gas-powered cars (all of which emit less CO2 than the top 20 biggest shipping vessels). It's not clear to me that these stupid little inconveniences actually take less political capital than anything else, but they certainly do wear down public tolerance for the program, which is fatal in the long run.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        Germany relied on 1) gas from Russia because it was naive on geopolitical issues. 2) fossil gas in general, because it was a cheap method to compensate clean energy storage (such as gas from renewable energy, classic batteries are by far not the only option to store energy) and grid improvement to compensate geographic fluctuations without storage. Nuclear was phased out because of the potentially catastrophic risk as well as the unwillingness go provide permanent storage for nuclear waste. Further, traditional nuclear power plants don't scale well, see the costs in France (even though it's not represented in electricity prices and this although France is already heavily invested in nuclear power plants), problems with heat waves/dry climate, as well as the fact that economic uranium sources are limited. France is building new plants, planning close to 50, however the long term trend will be a reduced share of nuclear power in the grid, because old reactors will have to shut down as well, and renewable energy build out will shadow everything else. This is in terms with the estimates in the IPCC report that cover cost and potential avoidance in CO2 emissions. Personally, I see activists mainly going after the government's to implement a strategy to reduce emissions, but surely almost everyone doing this will call out plastic items and fossil fuel usage where avoidable. Rightly so, if this reduces tolerance for whatever program (doing what? Reduce emissions?), I don't see the problem there, but rather at NIMBYism, mis information and green washing. There's nothing wrong with going after these things. I feel like you are more interested in preventing actions from being taken than shedding light on things that are missed - I hope I am wrong though and calling out hypocrisy of climate activists isn't the primary part.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        I'm not sure how you can credibly claim your goal is to minimize "headache and inconvenience" and then suggest replacing large parts of infrastructure as opposed to just adding new building codes for future developments that require no work. Meanwhile, the obvious consequences for nuclear reactors on shipping vessels will be radioactive debris spreading terrorist attacks.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Let's just change shipbuilding emissions codes to require future ships to be 0 emissions by 2027. By your logic, that requires no work. Also, you may need to learn more about modern nuclear technology. Shipboard nuclear reactors these days are very safe, and there are plenty of available reactor technologies out there that are impossible to turn into bombs.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        If there were already ship engines produced at scale that were the same cost drop in replacements and could be used with zero-extra training by existing personnel, and were just as efficient, safe, etc. then I would of course want future ships to be 0 emissions. Meanwhile, shipboard nuclear reactors have radioactive material. They can be cut open, so the radioactive material can be taken out. It can then be distributed throughout NYC by a terrorist with conventional explosives, killing millions.
  - ruszki 3y ago
    A modern induction stove causes headache and inconvenience? How exactly?
quags 3y ago
This covers new buildings. All the old stoves and infrastructure stays and there is no need to replace the existing stoves.

The biggest effect would be the negative one from manufacturing and replacing all those stoves. Gas stoves are a molecule in a drop in a bucket of climate change.

tcfhgj 3y ago

Every single thing is a drop in a bucket. Still the drops make a full bucket in the end

pclmulqdq 3y ago
Why do we frequently go after the drops that cause a lot of headache and inconvenience, then?
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  Because we have to go after all drops
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    How about we go after the coal power plants first? Or allow nuclear reactors on shipping vessels? Both of those will have 1000x more benefit than paper straws and electric stoves, whose benefits are questionable at best. There's plenty of lower-hanging fruit to go after.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      How about not, unless there is a reason why it is not possible to do multiple things in parallel?
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Because we're not doing the things that are truly impactful and have no cost to individuals, and instead focusing on changes that are annoying and useless. Plastic bags, plastic straws, gas stoves, the list goes on and on. All the while, the Germans have turned the coal power plants back on. That does not suggest that anyone is taking the environmental effects of their choices very seriously, and that they just want to lower peoples' standard of living and intrude on our lives. If that's what this is really about, then how about none of it? I'm sure you understand that if people continue getting inconvenienced in the name of climate change while governments and big corporations go on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at industrial scale, that's what's going to happen: instead of everyone making the changes they need to make, the vast majority of people will do nothing. The hypocrisy is not lost on anyone.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        You are free to participate politically if you think there are things needed to be done that aren't done. This is the way to stop governments (directly) and the industry (indirectly) reduce emissions. This can include elections, demonstrations, petitions, civil disobedience and more. Just keep in mind, things aren't always always that simple. E.g. Russia stopped shipping Germany gas, because they helped defending Ukraine which Russia started a war on. At the same time Germany relied on that Gas, and hat to quickly move to alternatives to keep the country running.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Thank you, and I do participate plenty. Part of that participation is calling out eco-hypocrisy, which seems to be the only thing that mainstream climate activists are good at. As to Germany, why did they rely on gas? Oh right, because they shut down their nuclear plants. So in the span of 3 years, Germany has gone from getting its base load from nuclear to gas to coal. If you really believe that atmospheric CO2 is an imminent threat to civilization, the tradeoffs are obvious and clearly biased in favor of ramping your nuclear industry significantly rather than hoping for a future breakthrough in battery technology that can allow you to run your base load off solar and wind. Like solar panels before they reached scale, this will start off as an incredibly expensive proposition, but it will get cheaper with scale. France seems to get it - they are building 50 new plants - but nobody else does. Instead of lobbying for impactful changes at this scale, we have plenty of activists going after ersatz plastic items, gas stoves, and gas-powered cars (all of which emit less CO2 than the top 20 biggest shipping vessels). It's not clear to me that these stupid little inconveniences actually take less political capital than anything else, but they certainly do wear down public tolerance for the program, which is fatal in the long run.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        Germany relied on 1) gas from Russia because it was naive on geopolitical issues. 2) fossil gas in general, because it was a cheap method to compensate clean energy storage (such as gas from renewable energy, classic batteries are by far not the only option to store energy) and grid improvement to compensate geographic fluctuations without storage. Nuclear was phased out because of the potentially catastrophic risk as well as the unwillingness go provide permanent storage for nuclear waste. Further, traditional nuclear power plants don't scale well, see the costs in France (even though it's not represented in electricity prices and this although France is already heavily invested in nuclear power plants), problems with heat waves/dry climate, as well as the fact that economic uranium sources are limited. France is building new plants, planning close to 50, however the long term trend will be a reduced share of nuclear power in the grid, because old reactors will have to shut down as well, and renewable energy build out will shadow everything else. This is in terms with the estimates in the IPCC report that cover cost and potential avoidance in CO2 emissions. Personally, I see activists mainly going after the government's to implement a strategy to reduce emissions, but surely almost everyone doing this will call out plastic items and fossil fuel usage where avoidable. Rightly so, if this reduces tolerance for whatever program (doing what? Reduce emissions?), I don't see the problem there, but rather at NIMBYism, mis information and green washing. There's nothing wrong with going after these things. I feel like you are more interested in preventing actions from being taken than shedding light on things that are missed - I hope I am wrong though and calling out hypocrisy of climate activists isn't the primary part.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      I'm not sure how you can credibly claim your goal is to minimize "headache and inconvenience" and then suggest replacing large parts of infrastructure as opposed to just adding new building codes for future developments that require no work. Meanwhile, the obvious consequences for nuclear reactors on shipping vessels will be radioactive debris spreading terrorist attacks.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Let's just change shipbuilding emissions codes to require future ships to be 0 emissions by 2027. By your logic, that requires no work. Also, you may need to learn more about modern nuclear technology. Shipboard nuclear reactors these days are very safe, and there are plenty of available reactor technologies out there that are impossible to turn into bombs.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        If there were already ship engines produced at scale that were the same cost drop in replacements and could be used with zero-extra training by existing personnel, and were just as efficient, safe, etc. then I would of course want future ships to be 0 emissions. Meanwhile, shipboard nuclear reactors have radioactive material. They can be cut open, so the radioactive material can be taken out. It can then be distributed throughout NYC by a terrorist with conventional explosives, killing millions.
- ruszki 3y ago
  A modern induction stove causes headache and inconvenience? How exactly?

quags 3y ago

This covers new buildings. All the old stoves and infrastructure stays and there is no need to replace the existing stoves.