8 ms·

It is incredible to see just how many big-oil talking points there are in this thread. From renewable energies resource costs, to their land use impact. I didn'

• raverbashing 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  • SirFatty 9mo ago
    And a talking point in the other direction is to refer to people as "boomers".
  • fuzzfactor 9mo ago
    In case you haven't noticed, it's the non-thinkers of all generations who willingly bury their head in the sand. Most people don't normally think it's the boomers in particular unless their powers of observation are somewhat limited. Which is understandable, you don't reach maturity overnight. Edit: not my downvote btw
    • raverbashing 9mo ago
      I'm not disagreeing with you so much but > Most people don't normally think it's the boomers in particular Interesting because most of the critiques, especially to electric cars come from boomers. Also to Solar and Wind, the kind of silly criticism like "Why are we filling our barely-arable lands with Solar?!" Now we'll watch how the European car manufacturers get swallowed by Chinese electrical manufacturers.
      • fuzzfactor 9mo ago
        I think what you're seeing is the criticism from those in the older generartions who are well-published and media savvy with decades more experience than average in that regard. Some of the old-timers can be expected to be better connected when it comes to available incentives too. Not unlike anybody else who gets more attention from pointing out any possible controversy rather than more mundane non-critical analysis. But not so much in the prevailing common sense of the actual baby boomers who for the most part are older and more ambivalent about these energy technology milestones and take them in stride pretty easily along with all the other progress over the decades they have seen. I am with far more people over 70 all the time who wish they could afford a Tesla or some extensive solar panels than those who have negative feelings about it. But you've also got negative "influencers" in older generations trying to appeal specifically to those who lived through similar (outdated or nearly forgotten) experiences, especially when the target demographic is known to be one that votes more often than average. Looks to me like it's even more selected younger voices among those who stand to gain so much more over an upcoming lifetime without any upset from alternative energy that are doing more actual complaining. Like the incentive coming from somewhere is overwhelming, I can't deny.
• delta_p_delta_x 9mo ago
  I was just about to make precisely the same comment. The fear, uncertainty, and doubt about renewables here is ridiculous, and I expected better. I suppose everyone watched too much Landman. China is rocketing ahead in every domain possible, from resource and financial independence, to infrastructure in terms of high-speed rail, bridges, roads, advanced fission reactors and bleeding-edge fusion research. Heavy industry like mining and processing, chemicals, ship-building. Let's not even get into semiconductors. I fully expect them to achieve parity with TSMC before 2030 and surpass them shortly after. Meanwhile, Western countries will say 'clean coal' or have a million different stakeholders squabble about where and how to build nuke power plants.
  • spiderfarmer 9mo ago
    The EU is moving towards 50% sustainable with lots of countries that at 60-75%, while the USA is at 25%. Europe is also at least a decade ahead. And since renewable + batteries is now cheaper than nuclear, we should spend our money and time wisely.
    • delta_p_delta_x 9mo ago
      > And since renewable + batteries is now cheaper than nuclear, we should spend our money and time wisely. Eggs in one basket. Renewables are good, but it gets cloudy, it becomes night, it might not be windy. Nuclear will output power come rain or shine, and like I said, it's not like China isn't investing in advanced fission. They're throwing money at everything to see what sticks. They're working on SMRs, molten salt, thorium, and more.
      • raducu 9mo ago
        > Eggs in one basket. Renewables are good, but it gets cloudy, night is a thing, it might not be windy Also, we can't survive an asteroid crash/extinction event with solar. Nuclear is transcedental. If we had practically unlimited fusion power, we could build underground, grow plants in aquaponics and aeroponics and ride it out in underground cities and farms.
• globular-toast 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  • xipho 9mo ago
    Ok, I'll bite. What if solar panels turn into breeding grounds with perfect environmental temperatures to create viruses that kill us all? Who is to say the sun won't blow up tomorrow? Why not enumerate all the things that might happen to distract? There is a nice quote going around re a weather scientists who gets asked annually what's it going to be like this year? He's tired, and notes "this year, and every year for the rest of your life is going to be the hottest ever." That's in large part to oil, full stop.
  • top_sigrid 9mo ago
    Do you have ANY datapoints or arguments to underpin that renewables "destroy all wilderness". Or even more that they are worse than fossil fuels? This claim - especially in your harsh tone - could need at least some reason.
  • triceratops 9mo ago
    > We look back and curse our ancestors for their unbridled use of fossil fuels. Who is to say future generations won't look back and curse us for destroying all wilderness? I curse my ancestors for destroying all wilderness to get at fossil fuels.
  • UncleMeat 9mo ago
    Yes fracking wells are famously harmless to the environment. Right.
• account42 9mo ago
  It's incredibly how common it is these days to see valid criticism dismissed as "X talking points" or "Y dog whistle". I guess that's easier than providing an argument.
  • balops 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    • roblh 9mo ago
      9 day old account talking about “the left”. Go back to Reddit.
      • balops 9mo ago
        [dead]
    • triceratops 9mo ago
      Who said anything about "the left"?
    • HumblyTossed 9mo ago
      And the Right are known to have deep, intellectual, nuanced discussions?
  • throw10920 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
• MarceliusK 9mo ago
  Criticism is healthy. False equivalence isn't.
• Rover222 9mo ago
  It's kind of bizarre to see the far right and far left circle to the same misguided big oil conclusions, although for different reasons. The right doesn't want their traditional oil/coal industries threatened. The left is kind of... just against the continued growth of technology/industry/humanity.
  • lostlogin 9mo ago
    Can you point at criticism from the left? I haven’t noticed it.
    • Rover222 9mo ago
      Mostly just saying the sentiment I've seen on reddit comments or X posts, stuff like this: https://x.com/duncancampbell/status/1647109450438955008 https://x.com/duncancampbell/status/1647109450438955008 I'm not saying the idea is institutionalized by the democrats, but I think musk/tesla hatred is kinda driving it
      • lostlogin 9mo ago
        That would be a weird way to get at Musk, as there’s plenty out there that avoids his toxic touch.
      • youngtaff 9mo ago
        But he specifically points out that those a Right Wing talking points!
• gruez 9mo ago
  >It is incredible to see just how many big-oil talking points there are in this thread. From renewable energies resource costs, to their land use impact. I didn't realise just how effective their propaganda was in the tech space till reading this thread. What makes this more valid than something like "it's incredible how many YIMBY talking points there are" in a thread about housing, aside from you agreeing with the YIMBYs? Is "talking points" just a roundabout way to summarily dismiss the opposition's arguments and imply they're dumb/misguided?
  • whatisthiseven 9mo ago
    Oil and gas have used, between drilling and refining, over 7 million acres of land in just the US. Yes, it provides more electricity, but at the cost of destroying the entire planet's biosphere, global warming, etc. Current US estimates for solar land usage are 500,000 acres. The land use arguments are bunk. Anyone who complains is repeating oil and gas propaganda.
    • Workaccount2 9mo ago
      Around me, conservatives started a grassroots "save the whales" campaign to block wind. Conservatives, protesting on the street to save the whales. Talk about a sight to see.
      • snaking0776 9mo ago
        Faux environmentalism is the new climate denialism. https://www.desmog.com/2025/08/27/ai-slop-websites-are-publishing-climate-science-denial/ https://www.desmog.com/2025/08/27/ai-slop-websites-are-publi...
      • triceratops 9mo ago
        I call them True Bird Lovers. You only see them in numbers when windmills come up. They've never seen any pictures of oil-covered birds from the Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon disasters.
      • mrguyorama 9mo ago
• tokai 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  • balops 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    • pphysch 9mo ago
      "China bots everywhere" or generally making renewable energy seem like a nefarious foreign plot is itself a big oil talking point. When your argument can't stand on the facts, deploy the Big Bad Bogeyman.
• jillesvangurp 9mo ago
  Fossil fuel could be heading for a big cliff where most countries that currently import a lot of oil/gas will be year on year reducing their imports. China is ahead of the curve here and is already importing less oil year on year. That's likely going to spread. If you extrapolate growth curves trending up for EVs a few years you can draw similar curves for oil demand trending down. We can speculate about how quick/slow all this will progress. But it's worth pointing out that e.g. IEA, EIA and similar institutes have been repeatedly wrong and overly pessimistic with their predictions for things like adoption and cost of renewables. People are still basing policy and important decisions on their reports. So this matters. The "What if they are wrong, again?" question might have some uncomfortable answers if you are betting on them not being wrong. A lot of developing markets are skipping oil/gas/coal completely and are going straight to renewables. They are not first building a grid using coal/gas plants but working around what little they have in terms of unreliable grid by going straight for solar/batteries and microgrids. That's a pattern you see all over parts of Africa with historically very little/flaky power infrastructure and countries like Pakistan. These are growth economies showing much quicker economical growth than the world average. That's going to spread. Lots of countries are going to be decimating their oil/gas imports over the next 20 years. That includes transport and power generation. They'll be installing wind/solar/batteries and buying lots of EVs. Fossil fuel usage won't go all the way to zero. But it won't stay at current levels or anywhere close to that. Some countries will be faster some will be slower. Being slower isn't necessarily good for economies. Good advice here is to take an economic point of view and be aware of things like growth trends, cost curves, learning effects, technological changes, etc. You don't have to be an early adopter or believer. But there's a lot of data out there that supports an optimistic view. And a lot of pessimistic wishful thinkers that are not really looking at data or just cherry picking reports that support their believes. The fossil fuel industry sponsors a lot of reports research. And they are about as trust worthy as the Tobacco industry is when it comes to the pros/cons of smoking. That's why the IEA and EIA keeps getting it wrong. It helps to understand who pays for their reports (hint: fossil fuel companies and countries that depend on those). A healthy personal perspective is maybe considering what happens if your pension fund bets on fossil fuel and that cliff I mentioned turns out to be very real in about 10-20 years. Because if you bet wrong, that affects the value of that. Before you knee jerk to an answer, take a close look at what institutional investors have actually been doing for a while. Hint: coal plants were written off as good investments ages ago and gas plants aren't looking much better at this point. I think you'll see them move on oil funds next.
• hackeraccount 9mo ago
  Really? I don't think I have a dog in this hunt but my judgement of comments is that it's maybe 70/30 (with the 30 being critical in one way or the other) and anyone critical is getting down voted to oblivion. That said "you're just repeating what you're told" is a comforting argument but doesn't go all that far.