8 ms·

the US can barely manage to pass its annual budget, I'm not hopeful

brookst 3y ago
A large portion of the US populace wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies. Also not hopeful.
- gottorf 3y ago
  What about the portion of the US populace that wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage because they think it's the best option they have? Is that not a valid viewpoint?
  - esarbe 3y ago
    I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
    - oldpersonintx 3y ago
      [dead]
    - gottorf 3y ago
      I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit, and the latter of good people who just want the best for everybody. If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. The oil and gas lobby is not so omnipotent that millions of people looking out for their own best interests, despite the imperfection of their knowledge, will stick to an obviously inferior means of achieving their goals. In other words, very few people will actually "maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies", as the GP said, if it hurts their pocketbooks to do so.
      - useless999 3y ago
        > I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit There is plenty of edvidence to the contrary. See e.g. “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt “Tracing Big Oil’s PR war to delay action on climate change” https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies... “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago” “A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... As for the market argument, it is costly because all historical capacity is in fossil fuel based systems. This is a major cost advantage to fossil fuel based solutions. Waiting for the market to adjust might be too little to late, climate change is path dependent, you can’t simply undo it.
      - esarbe 3y ago
        > I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched The economic and political power of the oil and gas lobby is magnitudes larger than the economic and political power of the wind and solar lobby. We're talking about entrenched interests here. Also, wind and solar didn't spent more than fifty years spreading misinformation and denialism about an existential threat to our global human civilization, framing and defaming credible scientists. If there's ever an existential threat to our global human civilization through wind and solar and the wind and solar lobby is found to spread misinformation, framing and defaming credible scientists, I'm willing to revisit the topic. Until then I'm not playing this game "both-sideism". There's a real and actual culprit here. > If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. That's the "free market" fallacy. But we don't have a free market. We have have trillions of yearly subsidies for oil and gas[0], we've had it for decades. We spent trillions building up oil and gas infrastructure. To expect wind and solar to compete on such an uneven playing field where even the rules of the game are written by the fossil fuel lobby is ludicrous[1]. Oh, by the way. Power generation through wind and solar has been lower then all and any fossil fuels, for years[2]. So much for "the market will solve it". [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel... [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/oil-lobbyists-use-rigged-system-hamstring-bidens-climate-agenda/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/oil-lobbyists-use-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      It’s also uneducated to eliminate fossil fuels at the expense of all else. There is real impact to life by destroying economies[0]. This is not a one dimensional problem. 0 - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
      - esarbe 3y ago
        No one is demanding to get rid of "fossil fuels at the expense of all else". That's a bit of a straw man. We're far away from getting to the point where we've gotten rid of fossil fuels at the expense of everything else. We've not actually really started to get rid of fossil fuels, yet.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    Come decision time, most people pick whatever meets their needs for the cheapest price. The ideologically-driven people are a minority. A very vocal minority, but a minority. Most people just choose what's cheap, convenient, and gets the job done. We can put our fingers on the scale by shifting subsidies and taxes around.
  - brookst 3y ago
    Of course it’s valid, and those people would not be in the “rolling coal to own the libs” population.
- seanw444 3y ago
  The current alternatives suck. Renewables are unreliable and produce massive waste themselves. What we need is nuclear, but I only ever hear the same people complaining about fossil fuels, complaining about nuclear. It's extremely safe. Like it's not even close. If we can maintain the status quo with better technology, it will be adopted. It's just not there yet. Hence, we stick to what we have. The liberal position on these societal problems is "take things away until the problem is fixed" which I find incredibly ironic, while the other's is "free market drives innovation when it's overwhelmingly necessary."
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Energy capex is fungible, and nuclear energy is the most expensive. It is also carries the highest risk of cost overruns and underestimation of decommissioning costs. Why spend a penny on fission nuclear when renewables are cheaper, have shorter lead times by decades, and are vastly less financially risky?
    - enqk 3y ago
      Demand too much minerals including, because they’re so much more diffuse metals like copper High soil occupancy in competition with food crops and human activities Cannot provide guaranteed baseline of supply without storage (more minerals)
      - Zigurd 3y ago
        Perhaps the Chernobyl exclusion zone could be covered with photovoltaic panels.
    - holbrad 3y ago
      I always find the framing of these discussions very sad. Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive, there are many historic examples of safe reactors built for very reasonable costs. (French and earlier American reactors especially.) Unfortunately there seems to be zero appetite to discuss let alone fix the killing of nuclear power though an absolutely crazy regulatory framework.
- mylidlpony 3y ago
  When "perceived enemies" don't care about this problem and exploit fossil fuel dependency to gain leverage over other countries it worsens the problem in realpolitik sense. It is unwise to just hand wave this aspect away.
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  That, plus not being willing to pay for infrastructure.

A large portion of the US populace wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies. Also not hopeful.

gottorf 3y ago
What about the portion of the US populace that wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage because they think it's the best option they have? Is that not a valid viewpoint?
- esarbe 3y ago
  I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
  - oldpersonintx 3y ago
    [dead]
  - gottorf 3y ago
    I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit, and the latter of good people who just want the best for everybody. If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. The oil and gas lobby is not so omnipotent that millions of people looking out for their own best interests, despite the imperfection of their knowledge, will stick to an obviously inferior means of achieving their goals. In other words, very few people will actually "maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies", as the GP said, if it hurts their pocketbooks to do so.
    - useless999 3y ago
      > I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit There is plenty of edvidence to the contrary. See e.g. “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt “Tracing Big Oil’s PR war to delay action on climate change” https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies... “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago” “A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... As for the market argument, it is costly because all historical capacity is in fossil fuel based systems. This is a major cost advantage to fossil fuel based solutions. Waiting for the market to adjust might be too little to late, climate change is path dependent, you can’t simply undo it.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      > I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched The economic and political power of the oil and gas lobby is magnitudes larger than the economic and political power of the wind and solar lobby. We're talking about entrenched interests here. Also, wind and solar didn't spent more than fifty years spreading misinformation and denialism about an existential threat to our global human civilization, framing and defaming credible scientists. If there's ever an existential threat to our global human civilization through wind and solar and the wind and solar lobby is found to spread misinformation, framing and defaming credible scientists, I'm willing to revisit the topic. Until then I'm not playing this game "both-sideism". There's a real and actual culprit here. > If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. That's the "free market" fallacy. But we don't have a free market. We have have trillions of yearly subsidies for oil and gas[0], we've had it for decades. We spent trillions building up oil and gas infrastructure. To expect wind and solar to compete on such an uneven playing field where even the rules of the game are written by the fossil fuel lobby is ludicrous[1]. Oh, by the way. Power generation through wind and solar has been lower then all and any fossil fuels, for years[2]. So much for "the market will solve it". [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel... [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/oil-lobbyists-use-rigged-system-hamstring-bidens-climate-agenda/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/oil-lobbyists-use-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    It’s also uneducated to eliminate fossil fuels at the expense of all else. There is real impact to life by destroying economies[0]. This is not a one dimensional problem. 0 - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
    - esarbe 3y ago
      No one is demanding to get rid of "fossil fuels at the expense of all else". That's a bit of a straw man. We're far away from getting to the point where we've gotten rid of fossil fuels at the expense of everything else. We've not actually really started to get rid of fossil fuels, yet.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- Aurornis 3y ago
  Come decision time, most people pick whatever meets their needs for the cheapest price. The ideologically-driven people are a minority. A very vocal minority, but a minority. Most people just choose what's cheap, convenient, and gets the job done. We can put our fingers on the scale by shifting subsidies and taxes around.
- brookst 3y ago
  Of course it’s valid, and those people would not be in the “rolling coal to own the libs” population.
seanw444 3y ago
The current alternatives suck. Renewables are unreliable and produce massive waste themselves. What we need is nuclear, but I only ever hear the same people complaining about fossil fuels, complaining about nuclear. It's extremely safe. Like it's not even close. If we can maintain the status quo with better technology, it will be adopted. It's just not there yet. Hence, we stick to what we have. The liberal position on these societal problems is "take things away until the problem is fixed" which I find incredibly ironic, while the other's is "free market drives innovation when it's overwhelmingly necessary."
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Energy capex is fungible, and nuclear energy is the most expensive. It is also carries the highest risk of cost overruns and underestimation of decommissioning costs. Why spend a penny on fission nuclear when renewables are cheaper, have shorter lead times by decades, and are vastly less financially risky?
  - enqk 3y ago
    Demand too much minerals including, because they’re so much more diffuse metals like copper High soil occupancy in competition with food crops and human activities Cannot provide guaranteed baseline of supply without storage (more minerals)
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      Perhaps the Chernobyl exclusion zone could be covered with photovoltaic panels.
  - holbrad 3y ago
    I always find the framing of these discussions very sad. Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive, there are many historic examples of safe reactors built for very reasonable costs. (French and earlier American reactors especially.) Unfortunately there seems to be zero appetite to discuss let alone fix the killing of nuclear power though an absolutely crazy regulatory framework.
mylidlpony 3y ago
When "perceived enemies" don't care about this problem and exploit fossil fuel dependency to gain leverage over other countries it worsens the problem in realpolitik sense. It is unwise to just hand wave this aspect away.
NoGravitas 3y ago
That, plus not being willing to pay for infrastructure.