3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoDid 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 agoNo. I was making 2 separate points, I would re-read the last sentence again.
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoHow 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 agoWe 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.