2 ms·

Clearly we need to solve this problem, climate change is real, and it's here. However, we can't just stop using oil. It would lead to the death (by starvation)

Clearly we need to solve this problem, climate change is real, and it's here. However, we can't just stop using oil. It would lead to the death (by starvation) of most of humanity, mostly in the poorer parts of the world. We need a well managed transition away from fossil fuel inputs. One of the first things that should be shifted, as much as is possible, is from Industrial Farming which uses massive chemical inputs, and burns up the soil. Regenerative agriculture can eliminate the need for tilling, capture carbon into the soil, which both then improve water retention, and decrease soil temperatures. These reduce the need for irrigation, increase the ability to absorb rainfall without run-off. The addition of ruminants to the mix produces fertilizer and meat at the same time. About 20% of the carbon we've dumped into the atmosphere could be recaptured if widespread adoption of regenerative farming were to happen. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot cheaper than trying to use machines to do it.

acdha 3y ago
> However, we can't just stop using oil The single best move we could make would be progressively taxing it: tell everyone that today is the cheapest a gallon of gas will ever be, with guaranteed 20% annual price increases with the tax revenue devoted to assisting low-income households decarbonize. That would tell every business to start investing in alternatives or efficiency improvements, homeowners would shift towards things like heat pumps to save money, and you wouldn’t have as many auto buyers locking in 15-20 years of pollution buying a heavy industrial truck so they can cosplay as a rancher on the way into cubicle land. Toss in credits for carbon sinks and you’d have a good way to support the kind of farming you mention without constantly being underpriced by farmers relying on subsidized cheap oil. Around the turn of the century, that was a Republican idea but since the fossil fuel industry successfully managed an ideological purge that’s now too politically incorrect to even mention in those circles.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  Gasoline use is just a small fraction of the demand for oil, most of it has other uses, and those aren't as flexible on demand as fuel for cars. I'd be willing to bet that they'd start flaring it off if demand collapsed, just to keep the refineries going. Fertilizer is a major sink of petrochemicals, and there really aren't any substitutes available on a large enough scale.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes, I’m aware - you’ll note I also mentioned home heating, which is usually oil or gas. That doesn’t in any way change the fact that raising the price would both give people the right economic incentives to use less and provide funds to assist with capital outlays that might require. That would among other things be great for letting us conserve usage for things which are hard to make from other sources. That’s a much better use of a limited resource than someone insecure driving a multi-ton vehicle to pick up a hamburger because it’s been subsidized to seem cheaper.
jeffbee 3y ago
Suburban middle class guy switching from driving an F150 to the Safeway to using an e-bike to get his groceries will not cause anyone to starve, but it will make a measurable dent in CO2 emissions. Do not frame this as an irreconcilable tension between starvation and plenty. The question is whether the average American consumer-bot can be coerced into not squandering the atmosphere at a rate 100x faster than the average human.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The guy is living in the suburbs, which means they aren’t going to the store very often as they probably live far away from it. That means they are getting more than a few bags of groceries, they don’t need an F150 for sure, but they probably aren’t getting to carry this with an e-bike. Better for the suburban guy to become a city guy and walk or bike to the grocery store a few times a week. They get better veggies that way as well.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      If they are a contractor that works in construction or some other similar field, the F150 can make sense. But otherwise I agree.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - somsak2 3y ago
    Problem is, they're still relying on oil in a truck to deliver those groceries. Guy in the suburb needs to turn their lawn into a full garden and become as self-sufficient as possible
- cmxch 3y ago
  Not as long as there are policymakers who aren’t making an equal or greater sacrifice. You want to have an impact on the suburban middle class guy/consumer, start with less jet set Davos/Aspen environmentalists. Coercion or deception by any means will only make them (and others) dig in deeper.

acdha 3y ago

> However, we can't just stop using oil The single best move we could make would be progressively taxing it: tell everyone that today is the cheapest a gallon of gas will ever be, with guaranteed 20% annual price increases with the tax revenue devoted to assisting low-income households decarbonize. That would tell every business to start investing in alternatives or efficiency improvements, homeowners would shift towards things like heat pumps to save money, and you wouldn’t have as many auto buyers locking in 15-20 years of pollution buying a heavy industrial truck so they can cosplay as a rancher on the way into cubicle land. Toss in credits for carbon sinks and you’d have a good way to support the kind of farming you mention without constantly being underpriced by farmers relying on subsidized cheap oil. Around the turn of the century, that was a Republican idea but since the fossil fuel industry successfully managed an ideological purge that’s now too politically incorrect to even mention in those circles.

mikewarot 3y ago
Gasoline use is just a small fraction of the demand for oil, most of it has other uses, and those aren't as flexible on demand as fuel for cars. I'd be willing to bet that they'd start flaring it off if demand collapsed, just to keep the refineries going. Fertilizer is a major sink of petrochemicals, and there really aren't any substitutes available on a large enough scale.
- acdha 3y ago
  Yes, I’m aware - you’ll note I also mentioned home heating, which is usually oil or gas. That doesn’t in any way change the fact that raising the price would both give people the right economic incentives to use less and provide funds to assist with capital outlays that might require. That would among other things be great for letting us conserve usage for things which are hard to make from other sources. That’s a much better use of a limited resource than someone insecure driving a multi-ton vehicle to pick up a hamburger because it’s been subsidized to seem cheaper.

jeffbee 3y ago

Suburban middle class guy switching from driving an F150 to the Safeway to using an e-bike to get his groceries will not cause anyone to starve, but it will make a measurable dent in CO2 emissions. Do not frame this as an irreconcilable tension between starvation and plenty. The question is whether the average American consumer-bot can be coerced into not squandering the atmosphere at a rate 100x faster than the average human.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The guy is living in the suburbs, which means they aren’t going to the store very often as they probably live far away from it. That means they are getting more than a few bags of groceries, they don’t need an F150 for sure, but they probably aren’t getting to carry this with an e-bike. Better for the suburban guy to become a city guy and walk or bike to the grocery store a few times a week. They get better veggies that way as well.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    If they are a contractor that works in construction or some other similar field, the F150 can make sense. But otherwise I agree.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- somsak2 3y ago
  Problem is, they're still relying on oil in a truck to deliver those groceries. Guy in the suburb needs to turn their lawn into a full garden and become as self-sufficient as possible
cmxch 3y ago
Not as long as there are policymakers who aren’t making an equal or greater sacrifice. You want to have an impact on the suburban middle class guy/consumer, start with less jet set Davos/Aspen environmentalists. Coercion or deception by any means will only make them (and others) dig in deeper.