5 ms·

I've heard the argument made that it's better to stop burning fossil fuel, even if you're a climate change denier for reasons like this. Even if you think clim

I've heard the argument made that it's better to stop burning fossil fuel, even if you're a climate change denier for reasons like this. Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?

graemep 1y ago
I agree. It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions. However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  > It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions. Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?
  - acdha 1y ago
    It’s definitely a combination of both but I think oil wealth is inherently destabilizing because it tends to be concentrated in areas which were not previously rich and densely populated (most of the world by area) and because the way the market works allows a relatively small number of people to be wealthy without much local support compared to, say, high-end manufacturing which require lots of skilled workers and local investment. Norway is basically the only example of a petrostate where the money is invested in the betterment of the entire country.
  - lazide 1y ago
    The middle east was literally roving bands of desert Bedouins and warring religious states long before fossil oil was known to be useful, let alone of major geopolitical importance. Have people meddled since? Of course. Such is how power works. But you'd have to go back to Roman times to find a period of stability in the middle east, and the factors that led to that have nothing to do with Oil.
  - graemep 1y ago
    Yes. Not just the rest of the world wanting influence over the oil supply, resources. Natural resources have harmful effects: making currencies uncompetitive, corruption as people compete for a share of the wealth rather than creating new wealth.. https://moneyterms.co.uk/dutch-disease/ https://moneyterms.co.uk/dutch-disease/
  - bootsmann 1y ago
    Norway and Botswana are good counterpoints here. I think its more about the fact that resource-rich countries naturally have a way for elites to stay in power longer than those without simply because they have enough money to go around to appease the populace they control. (An interesting test of this thesis would be how long Putin can stay in power now that they have to partially ration fuel due to Ukrainian refinery strikes)
- 7952 1y ago
  At least with Drax the combustion is managed by professionals, can have treatment to remove some emissions, and shoots the pollution high into the atmosphere. Its probably safer to live near Drax than a village full of recreational wood burners.
hereme888 1y ago
I'm on that boat. Though no one denies that the climate changes (but rather argue the about degree of human contribution and climate warming), destroying the beauty of nature and polluting the environment should go against global human conscience.
- melling 1y ago
  “The climate is always changing” Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles. They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly… You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.
  - hereme888 1y ago
    I think it's imbecile for self-righteous people to not spare a few moments of patience to politely try to correct those who were exposed to wrong information that caters to their bias. It's almost guaranteed that you also believe some sort of ridiculous conspiracy or bias, just like everyone else. Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
    - melling 1y ago
      I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc. Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see. Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next? What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
      - hereme888 1y ago
        You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
globular-toast 1y ago
The people who benefit from the status quo are also the people who have the power to change it, and they don't have to live in the polluted areas.
Hilift 1y ago
It is being reduced where you think it should be. There is now a more serious threat from uncontrollable methane emissions. Landfills can turn into a slushee that accelerates methane ouptput. And landfills can catch fire, such as the Chiquita Canyon landfill in Val Verde, California (90 acres). 58% of uncontrolled methane is from food decay, and is increasing. https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissions-landfilled-food-waste https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissi... Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735
giraffe_lady 1y ago
What if we create a better world for nothing?

graemep 1y ago

I agree. It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions. However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
> It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions. Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?
- acdha 1y ago
  It’s definitely a combination of both but I think oil wealth is inherently destabilizing because it tends to be concentrated in areas which were not previously rich and densely populated (most of the world by area) and because the way the market works allows a relatively small number of people to be wealthy without much local support compared to, say, high-end manufacturing which require lots of skilled workers and local investment. Norway is basically the only example of a petrostate where the money is invested in the betterment of the entire country.
- lazide 1y ago
  The middle east was literally roving bands of desert Bedouins and warring religious states long before fossil oil was known to be useful, let alone of major geopolitical importance. Have people meddled since? Of course. Such is how power works. But you'd have to go back to Roman times to find a period of stability in the middle east, and the factors that led to that have nothing to do with Oil.
- graemep 1y ago
  Yes. Not just the rest of the world wanting influence over the oil supply, resources. Natural resources have harmful effects: making currencies uncompetitive, corruption as people compete for a share of the wealth rather than creating new wealth.. https://moneyterms.co.uk/dutch-disease/ https://moneyterms.co.uk/dutch-disease/
- bootsmann 1y ago
  Norway and Botswana are good counterpoints here. I think its more about the fact that resource-rich countries naturally have a way for elites to stay in power longer than those without simply because they have enough money to go around to appease the populace they control. (An interesting test of this thesis would be how long Putin can stay in power now that they have to partially ration fuel due to Ukrainian refinery strikes)
7952 1y ago
At least with Drax the combustion is managed by professionals, can have treatment to remove some emissions, and shoots the pollution high into the atmosphere. Its probably safer to live near Drax than a village full of recreational wood burners.

hereme888 1y ago

I'm on that boat. Though no one denies that the climate changes (but rather argue the about degree of human contribution and climate warming), destroying the beauty of nature and polluting the environment should go against global human conscience.

melling 1y ago
“The climate is always changing” Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles. They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly… You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I think it's imbecile for self-righteous people to not spare a few moments of patience to politely try to correct those who were exposed to wrong information that caters to their bias. It's almost guaranteed that you also believe some sort of ridiculous conspiracy or bias, just like everyone else. Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
  - melling 1y ago
    I’ve spent decades. They’re imbeciles! By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc. Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see. Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next? What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
    - hereme888 1y ago
      You think 90% of the world cares to follow what scientists said in the 1970's? All they care about is "They said 'global warming', but now some news report it's actually colder, and I've heard several scientists give presentations that it's all fake and not true. They just want to push their green agenda and are part of a conspiracy to [something]. And btw the earth is actually flat. All those satellite images are CGG, says all the youtube videos I've watched. And yea, vaccines cause autism because I've read a bunch of blogs online proving it." It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.

globular-toast 1y ago

The people who benefit from the status quo are also the people who have the power to change it, and they don't have to live in the polluted areas.

Hilift 1y ago

It is being reduced where you think it should be. There is now a more serious threat from uncontrollable methane emissions. Landfills can turn into a slushee that accelerates methane ouptput. And landfills can catch fire, such as the Chiquita Canyon landfill in Val Verde, California (90 acres). 58% of uncontrolled methane is from food decay, and is increasing. https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissions-landfilled-food-waste https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissi... Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735

giraffe_lady 1y ago

What if we create a better world for nothing?