3 ms·

The good thing is that change is happening. There is a lot of improvement and we’ve cut the correlation between growth and emissions. The bad part is that it’s

The good thing is that change is happening. There is a lot of improvement and we’ve cut the correlation between growth and emissions. The bad part is that it’s happening way too slow because of a lack of collective action as you suggest. I don’t believe the problem is fundamentally democracy. Democratic countries have taken action in the past famously with CFCs that was probably unthinkable. But clearly Democracy is insufficient. We’ve tried several mechanisms but none of them have worked so far.

dottjt 3y ago
You're not serious about this, are you? You realise there's almost a 1:1 correlation between energy use and GDP? We're not fundamentally reducing the amount of energy we're using, and there's nothing to suggest that we can seriously replace oil with other means. Think plastic etc.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Did you really cite turning oil into plastic as evidence that we can't move away from fossil fuels for large scale energy production?
  - dottjt 3y ago
    No. I was making 2 separate points, I would re-read the last sentence again.
    - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      How is that point relevant? The goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, not eliminate the use of oil generally. For plastics production, that goal could be achieved by migrating extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transport to carbon neutral energy sources. Of course, moving away from non-biodegradable plastics, in general, is also a good idea for a host of other reasons. But given oil is also used in, for example, the production of fertilizer, we're probably gonna need to be able to extract it and use it sustainably for a while yet.
- nine_k 3y ago
  We of course should increase energy consumption. We have ridiculous amounts of energy sent to us by our local star every day. We're just bad at harvesting and storing it. But we should decrease carbon emissions. Partly it will be by turning to fully electrical processes (trains, trucks, etc) and generating more electricity using more solar, wind, and nuclear power plants. Partly it will be by turning to synthetic fuels, again powered by non-fossil-fuel sources. Burning hydrocarbons is fine if you recycle the CO₂ after that.
labster 3y ago
The comparison to CFCs to climate is terrible and should stop. Telling a handful of companies to stop making one chemical and sell another is hardly the same as replacing almost all energy infrastructure. We all worked together to boil an egg, so democracy can make a five-tier wedding cake no problem! It’s not that I believe we can’t solve the problem, it’s just a bad metaphor. And that we’ve collectively chosen to value our own comfort over our children and grandchildren.

dottjt 3y ago

You're not serious about this, are you? You realise there's almost a 1:1 correlation between energy use and GDP? We're not fundamentally reducing the amount of energy we're using, and there's nothing to suggest that we can seriously replace oil with other means. Think plastic etc.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Did you really cite turning oil into plastic as evidence that we can't move away from fossil fuels for large scale energy production?
- dottjt 3y ago
  No. I was making 2 separate points, I would re-read the last sentence again.
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    How is that point relevant? The goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, not eliminate the use of oil generally. For plastics production, that goal could be achieved by migrating extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transport to carbon neutral energy sources. Of course, moving away from non-biodegradable plastics, in general, is also a good idea for a host of other reasons. But given oil is also used in, for example, the production of fertilizer, we're probably gonna need to be able to extract it and use it sustainably for a while yet.
nine_k 3y ago
We of course should increase energy consumption. We have ridiculous amounts of energy sent to us by our local star every day. We're just bad at harvesting and storing it. But we should decrease carbon emissions. Partly it will be by turning to fully electrical processes (trains, trucks, etc) and generating more electricity using more solar, wind, and nuclear power plants. Partly it will be by turning to synthetic fuels, again powered by non-fossil-fuel sources. Burning hydrocarbons is fine if you recycle the CO₂ after that.

labster 3y ago

The comparison to CFCs to climate is terrible and should stop. Telling a handful of companies to stop making one chemical and sell another is hardly the same as replacing almost all energy infrastructure. We all worked together to boil an egg, so democracy can make a five-tier wedding cake no problem! It’s not that I believe we can’t solve the problem, it’s just a bad metaphor. And that we’ve collectively chosen to value our own comfort over our children and grandchildren.