5 ms·

>“The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions,” Guterres said, a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will

>“The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions,” Guterres said, a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will lead the next U.N. climate summit. “It’s fossil fuels – period.” The statement is incoherent. Why are fossil fuels, apart from their emissions, "a problem - period"? Every resource we use, every decision we make, always have tradeoffs. Framing fossil fuels as a problem in and of themselves makes no sense to me. They've obviously been an incredible boon to humanity. It feels akin to demonizing antibiotics because eventually antibiotic resistance will be a problem. It has saved countless lives, and will continue to save countless more, but it has some downsides which will get worse in the future. So let's say "antibiotics are incompatible with human survival."

defrost 3y ago
From a resource industry perspective fossil fuels are a problem as they have a finite supply through which we've churned through essentially all the relatively easy to get to stuff. The Saudi's have already reached peak oil for their region (by the estimate of their own engineers) which means they have essentially hit peak monthly production and the next 50 odd years will see less and less production at higher and higher cost. This is the reality of fossil fuels, the world will see them about for the next century but (failing other energy sources) the demand will increase as populations increase both in number and in per capita consumption as the supply dwindles and the costs increase .. not to mention every barrel pulled up from deep underground is a nother barrel going toward the climate problem. With no move to replace fossil fuels as the principal energy source we're heading into increased conflict over access. ie, - They're an ongoing problem and we're best off moving to other means while we are able to do so. As for antibiotics, yes, they are a problem, especially their current excessive use in the livestock industry where casual overuse is only accelerating the timeline to them becoming useless.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  I remember all the peak oil claims in the early 2000s, then all of a sudden shale oil, gas, and fracking made all the people sounding the alarm look very silly. Resource scarcity isn't a new phenomenon. It's why markets exist. Prices allocate resources. There is no emergency here. Sure, fossil fuels are finite - can you give me a number for how finite? Everyone who tried in 2008 was wrong. Prices increased, we got more exploration, the tech improved, and all of a sudden our fossil fuel supply massively increased. Everyone seems so utterly confident in predicting so many problems in the future, yet things keep getting better generation after generation. We need to stop pretending we can predict and solve all of society's future problems right now.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Prices increased, we got more exploration, the tech improved, and all of a sudden our fossil fuel supply massively increased. But no actual new resources were created, as I said it's a limited resource and now we've passed a point where further access to what's left require greater cost, greater effort, greater energy .. and when we do use these tail end supplies we continue to add to increasing C02 load in the troposphere. > We need to stop pretending we can predict [...] society's future problems right now. Bit general, but we can at least specifically predict how much additional energy is trapped by increasing insulation in the troposhere .. that's thermodynamics and a spherical spreadsheet. Easy enough to think of a 100+ years ago, back of the envelope in the 1970s, and model indetail today.
    - SamPatt 3y ago
      >we've passed a point where further access to what's left require greater cost, greater effort, greater energy This is exactly what was said before, and was premature, that was my point. It's technically correct that no new resources were created, but practically speaking, the new technology revealed resources we didn't know existed (or couldn't retrieve). The point is that we don't know how far this extends in the future. Reality has a way of making fools of anyone who naively extends trend lines.
ftxbro 3y ago
> > "“The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions,” Guterres said, a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will lead the next U.N. climate summit. “It’s fossil fuels – period.”" > "The statement is incoherent. Why are fossil fuels, apart from their emissions, "a problem - period"?"" I was curious about this so I read the context. Your quote hints at the context as "a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will lead the next U.N. climate summit." Elsewhere in the AP article they explain the context in more detail: "Secretary-General António Guterres also dismissed suggestions by some oil executives - including the man tapped to chair this year’s international climate talks in Dubai - that fossil fuel firms can keep up production if they find a way to capture planet-warming carbon emissions." So with this context, it sounds like when it was suggested the fossil fuel industry burn less fuel, the fuel industry guy said something like 'ok but what if we burn the fuel and then capture the emissions :trollface:' and Guterres is calling them out on this incoherent troll suggestion. I mean if you know anything about physics or chemistry then you know that the suggestion is incoherent or deceptive like maybe at some point they plan to redefine emissions to not include carbon dioxide or some other scheme like that. It might seem like that fuel industry guy is just trolling or is ignorant of physics or chemistry when he says meaningless things like that, but the real effect is that it gives cover for people who defend the fossil fuel industry and to say that Guterres is the one making incoherent statements when you take parts of the conversation out of context. So it's not just a silly thing it's actually malicious.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  >it sounds like when it was suggested the fossil fuel industry burn less fuel... But the fossil fuel industry doesn't burn very much fuel at all. You (and everyone reading this) buy it and burn it because it makes your lives so much better. Or buy electricity or other things which burned the fuel to make them. >the real effect is that it gives cover for people who defend the fossil fuel industry Gives cover, what an interesting phrase. The context doesn't make the statement more coherent. Why are fossil fuels a problem absent the emissions? Resource scarcity and advancing technology have always led to changing energy sources and usage over time, no fear mongering about planetary extinction necessary.

defrost 3y ago

From a resource industry perspective fossil fuels are a problem as they have a finite supply through which we've churned through essentially all the relatively easy to get to stuff. The Saudi's have already reached peak oil for their region (by the estimate of their own engineers) which means they have essentially hit peak monthly production and the next 50 odd years will see less and less production at higher and higher cost. This is the reality of fossil fuels, the world will see them about for the next century but (failing other energy sources) the demand will increase as populations increase both in number and in per capita consumption as the supply dwindles and the costs increase .. not to mention every barrel pulled up from deep underground is a nother barrel going toward the climate problem. With no move to replace fossil fuels as the principal energy source we're heading into increased conflict over access. ie, - They're an ongoing problem and we're best off moving to other means while we are able to do so. As for antibiotics, yes, they are a problem, especially their current excessive use in the livestock industry where casual overuse is only accelerating the timeline to them becoming useless.

SamPatt 3y ago
I remember all the peak oil claims in the early 2000s, then all of a sudden shale oil, gas, and fracking made all the people sounding the alarm look very silly. Resource scarcity isn't a new phenomenon. It's why markets exist. Prices allocate resources. There is no emergency here. Sure, fossil fuels are finite - can you give me a number for how finite? Everyone who tried in 2008 was wrong. Prices increased, we got more exploration, the tech improved, and all of a sudden our fossil fuel supply massively increased. Everyone seems so utterly confident in predicting so many problems in the future, yet things keep getting better generation after generation. We need to stop pretending we can predict and solve all of society's future problems right now.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Prices increased, we got more exploration, the tech improved, and all of a sudden our fossil fuel supply massively increased. But no actual new resources were created, as I said it's a limited resource and now we've passed a point where further access to what's left require greater cost, greater effort, greater energy .. and when we do use these tail end supplies we continue to add to increasing C02 load in the troposphere. > We need to stop pretending we can predict [...] society's future problems right now. Bit general, but we can at least specifically predict how much additional energy is trapped by increasing insulation in the troposhere .. that's thermodynamics and a spherical spreadsheet. Easy enough to think of a 100+ years ago, back of the envelope in the 1970s, and model indetail today.
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    >we've passed a point where further access to what's left require greater cost, greater effort, greater energy This is exactly what was said before, and was premature, that was my point. It's technically correct that no new resources were created, but practically speaking, the new technology revealed resources we didn't know existed (or couldn't retrieve). The point is that we don't know how far this extends in the future. Reality has a way of making fools of anyone who naively extends trend lines.

ftxbro 3y ago

> > "“The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions,” Guterres said, a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will lead the next U.N. climate summit. “It’s fossil fuels – period.”" > "The statement is incoherent. Why are fossil fuels, apart from their emissions, "a problem - period"?"" I was curious about this so I read the context. Your quote hints at the context as "a nod to recent comments made by Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates official who will lead the next U.N. climate summit." Elsewhere in the AP article they explain the context in more detail: "Secretary-General António Guterres also dismissed suggestions by some oil executives - including the man tapped to chair this year’s international climate talks in Dubai - that fossil fuel firms can keep up production if they find a way to capture planet-warming carbon emissions." So with this context, it sounds like when it was suggested the fossil fuel industry burn less fuel, the fuel industry guy said something like 'ok but what if we burn the fuel and then capture the emissions :trollface:' and Guterres is calling them out on this incoherent troll suggestion. I mean if you know anything about physics or chemistry then you know that the suggestion is incoherent or deceptive like maybe at some point they plan to redefine emissions to not include carbon dioxide or some other scheme like that. It might seem like that fuel industry guy is just trolling or is ignorant of physics or chemistry when he says meaningless things like that, but the real effect is that it gives cover for people who defend the fossil fuel industry and to say that Guterres is the one making incoherent statements when you take parts of the conversation out of context. So it's not just a silly thing it's actually malicious.

SamPatt 3y ago
>it sounds like when it was suggested the fossil fuel industry burn less fuel... But the fossil fuel industry doesn't burn very much fuel at all. You (and everyone reading this) buy it and burn it because it makes your lives so much better. Or buy electricity or other things which burned the fuel to make them. >the real effect is that it gives cover for people who defend the fossil fuel industry Gives cover, what an interesting phrase. The context doesn't make the statement more coherent. Why are fossil fuels a problem absent the emissions? Resource scarcity and advancing technology have always led to changing energy sources and usage over time, no fear mongering about planetary extinction necessary.