4 ms·

Coal is responsible for more emissions than oil, and natgas isn't far behind. So if we just got rid of oil and kept natgas and coal, we'd be ok according to you

Coal is responsible for more emissions than oil, and natgas isn't far behind. So if we just got rid of oil and kept natgas and coal, we'd be ok according to your logic?

CalRobert 3y ago
That's really an unhelpful bit of pedantry. Edit: Maybe my sentiment is unpopular. I read the comment and thought that "oil" clearly was a standing for fossil fuels in general. I don't see how it could be read to be saying "oil is bad but coal and gas are OK" and thought the reply suggesting this was the case wasn't really in good faith. But I may have been mistaken!
- himinlomax 3y ago
  Coal and gas are used massively by countries such as Germany that actively try to sabotage carbon-free nuclear energy.
  - morsch 3y ago
    Abstaining isn't sabotaging. Vegetarians aren't actively sabotaging meat production. Electricity exports from dirty plants in Germany were vital in propping up France's nuclear power grid when it was in trouble in the past year. There's plenty of sabotage potential there if there were any intention which there is not.
    - himinlomax 3y ago
      Their "green hydrogen" nonsense counts as sabotage.
      - morsch 3y ago
        It's harmful nonsense but I don't see how it sabotages nuclear energy. If anything, proponents of nuclear energy should be thrilled. Free energy, now available for legacy heating technology. The party that keeps insisting on adding these laughable electricity-to-fuel regulations is amenable to nuclear power plants and would undoubtedly have kept them running in a different coalition.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Given the topic of conversation, it is a necessary bit of pedantry. If we are going to abandon "climate change" because it does not fully convey the issue, replacing it with "oil catastrophe", which also does not fully convey the issue, is not particularly useful. The latter is going to leave people thinking that all we need to do is stop using oil, which may be a good start, but not a complete solution.
- martinald 3y ago
  It's really not pedantry, if anything oil is more 'valuable' than (especially) coal and natgas in terms of the energy transition - it is much much harder to replace oil based products (aviation fuels, diesel for heavy industrial use for example) than it is to switch off coal power plants.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Coal is responsible for more emissions than oil, and natgas isn't far behind. So if we just got rid of oil and kept natgas and coal, we'd be ok according to your logic?

CalRobert 3y ago

That's really an unhelpful bit of pedantry. Edit: Maybe my sentiment is unpopular. I read the comment and thought that "oil" clearly was a standing for fossil fuels in general. I don't see how it could be read to be saying "oil is bad but coal and gas are OK" and thought the reply suggesting this was the case wasn't really in good faith. But I may have been mistaken!

himinlomax 3y ago
Coal and gas are used massively by countries such as Germany that actively try to sabotage carbon-free nuclear energy.
- morsch 3y ago
  Abstaining isn't sabotaging. Vegetarians aren't actively sabotaging meat production. Electricity exports from dirty plants in Germany were vital in propping up France's nuclear power grid when it was in trouble in the past year. There's plenty of sabotage potential there if there were any intention which there is not.
  - himinlomax 3y ago
    Their "green hydrogen" nonsense counts as sabotage.
    - morsch 3y ago
      It's harmful nonsense but I don't see how it sabotages nuclear energy. If anything, proponents of nuclear energy should be thrilled. Free energy, now available for legacy heating technology. The party that keeps insisting on adding these laughable electricity-to-fuel regulations is amenable to nuclear power plants and would undoubtedly have kept them running in a different coalition.
randomdata 3y ago
Given the topic of conversation, it is a necessary bit of pedantry. If we are going to abandon "climate change" because it does not fully convey the issue, replacing it with "oil catastrophe", which also does not fully convey the issue, is not particularly useful. The latter is going to leave people thinking that all we need to do is stop using oil, which may be a good start, but not a complete solution.
martinald 3y ago
It's really not pedantry, if anything oil is more 'valuable' than (especially) coal and natgas in terms of the energy transition - it is much much harder to replace oil based products (aviation fuels, diesel for heavy industrial use for example) than it is to switch off coal power plants.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]