4 ms·

Because the continued survival of civilization depends on leaving fossil fuel in the ground. If the transition isn't fast enough then we will have horrible, let

Because the continued survival of civilization depends on leaving fossil fuel in the ground. If the transition isn't fast enough then we will have horrible, lethal shortages, but that's still better than the worst climate scenarios.

slashdev 7mo ago
That may or may not be true. But it won't stay in the ground as long as there is money to be made by extracting and consuming it. Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies. I don't follow your logic.
- Tostino 7mo ago
  That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations. People hate migrants enough as it is. Climate crisis migrations will make these "little" war migrations seem quaint.
  - slashdev 7mo ago
    I agree, but that's the world we live in.
  - nandomrumber 7mo ago
    > That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations. I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to. No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away. What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.
    - Tostino 7mo ago
      Demand isn't static. Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption. We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned. The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.
      - nandomrumber 7mo ago
        > long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future. That’s not science. That’s wishful thinking. We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels. It’s unfalsifiable. We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control. Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today. Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.
        Tostino 7mo ago
        Your initial claim was that Europe should start opening more wells for domestic production. If they started right now, that would help with this current oil/ gas shock in the market? They wouldn't come online until far after this is over. You know you're being disingenuous. This is not a discussion you're having in good faith so I'm going to just going to end it here.
        slashdev 7mo ago
        It would be useful against future supply shocks, don't you think?
        nandomrumber 7mo ago
- Scarblac 7mo ago
  The only direct thing we (the Netherlands) can do to prevent carastrophic climate change is to leave fossil fuels on our territory in the ground. Everything else is indirect.
  - kyboren 7mo ago
    I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels someone else refused to leave in the ground means--surprisingly--that fossil fuels weren't left in the ground after all. And it turns out that we actually live on a shared planet with a common atmosphere; sourcing your fuels from abroad does nothing to prevent climate change. But it does mean that you are unable to secure some of the most fundamental inputs to your economy.
    - slashdev 7mo ago
      Plus you have no control over the standards for extractions (e.g. methane leaks), and shipping it causes more pollution. They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels. It's just a losing proposition in every way.
    - Scarblac 7mo ago
      > I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels. Obviously not, as we're closing these fields and haven't stopped yet. Someone will have to stop using it, yes.
  - Sabinus 7mo ago
    No, the only direct thing the Netherlands can do is decarbonise the economy. Shifting sources of carbon to outside the country is just passing the buck.
    - Scarblac 7mo ago
nandomrumber 7mo ago
You’re willing to sacrifice the lives of at least some poor people who exist now, or are likely to exist in the near future, for a theory that is unfalsifiable. That’s not since. That’s brainwashing, and it’s not even good brainwashing.
- myrmidon 7mo ago
  > You’re willing to sacrifice the lives of at least some poor people who exist now, or are likely to exist in the near future, for a theory that is unfalsifiable. What exactly do you mean with "unfalsifiable"? We actually measure atmospheric CO2, sea level and temperature; that's plenty falsifiability to me. And the greenhouse effect itself is not even in question. Fossil emissions are sacrificing people not just from climate change in the future, but right now from air pollution, too (about 5M deaths per year actually, according to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/).
  - nandomrumber 7mo ago
    Climate science wants us to ignore the geological record and ignore geological processes. A cubic kilometre of lava at 1200 degrees C is enough energy for thirty (30!) hurricanes. It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated. But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.
    - slashdev 7mo ago
      > It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated. You're mistaking possible for probable. There's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and lot's of evidence that it's from climate change. In science you follow the evidence, not your pet theory. > But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age. I don't think you understand either science or ice ages.
NoLinkToMe 7mo ago
Closing Groningen didn't leave fossil in the ground. It took LNG from US and gas from Norway out of the ground instead. The decision to stop using fossil fuels is not tied to the decision to stop one of the sources of fossil fuels. They're divorced. Stopping fossil fuels requires investments in alternatives, and price mechanisms that disfavour fossils. Absent those mechanisms, closing one source of fossil just shifts demand to another source of fossil, which is exactly what happened. Meanwhile closing the gas source cost the NL a few hundred billion euros, the amount of money it needs to transition to renewables. Instead it is spending that on US LNG and Norwegian gas. The field shouldn't have been closed in 2023, it should've remained open until e.g. 2030 and all proceeds earmarked for massive energy transition subsidies. Instead we're just importing expensive fossil now and have insufficient money to meet our green ambitions.
- Scarblac 7mo ago
  > Closing Groningen didn't leave fossil in the ground. It took LNG from US and gas from Norway out of the ground instead. That was getting out of the ground and burned by someone anyway.

slashdev 7mo ago

That may or may not be true. But it won't stay in the ground as long as there is money to be made by extracting and consuming it. Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies. I don't follow your logic.

Tostino 7mo ago
That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations. People hate migrants enough as it is. Climate crisis migrations will make these "little" war migrations seem quaint.
- slashdev 7mo ago
  I agree, but that's the world we live in.
- nandomrumber 7mo ago
  > That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations. I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to. No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away. What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.
  - Tostino 7mo ago
    Demand isn't static. Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption. We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned. The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.
    - nandomrumber 7mo ago
      > long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future. That’s not science. That’s wishful thinking. We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels. It’s unfalsifiable. We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control. Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today. Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.
      - Tostino 7mo ago
        Your initial claim was that Europe should start opening more wells for domestic production. If they started right now, that would help with this current oil/ gas shock in the market? They wouldn't come online until far after this is over. You know you're being disingenuous. This is not a discussion you're having in good faith so I'm going to just going to end it here.
        slashdev 7mo ago
        It would be useful against future supply shocks, don't you think?
        nandomrumber 7mo ago
Scarblac 7mo ago
The only direct thing we (the Netherlands) can do to prevent carastrophic climate change is to leave fossil fuels on our territory in the ground. Everything else is indirect.
- kyboren 7mo ago
  I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels someone else refused to leave in the ground means--surprisingly--that fossil fuels weren't left in the ground after all. And it turns out that we actually live on a shared planet with a common atmosphere; sourcing your fuels from abroad does nothing to prevent climate change. But it does mean that you are unable to secure some of the most fundamental inputs to your economy.
  - slashdev 7mo ago
    Plus you have no control over the standards for extractions (e.g. methane leaks), and shipping it causes more pollution. They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels. It's just a losing proposition in every way.
  - Scarblac 7mo ago
    > I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels. Obviously not, as we're closing these fields and haven't stopped yet. Someone will have to stop using it, yes.
- Sabinus 7mo ago
  No, the only direct thing the Netherlands can do is decarbonise the economy. Shifting sources of carbon to outside the country is just passing the buck.
  - Scarblac 7mo ago

nandomrumber 7mo ago

You’re willing to sacrifice the lives of at least some poor people who exist now, or are likely to exist in the near future, for a theory that is unfalsifiable. That’s not since. That’s brainwashing, and it’s not even good brainwashing.

myrmidon 7mo ago
> You’re willing to sacrifice the lives of at least some poor people who exist now, or are likely to exist in the near future, for a theory that is unfalsifiable. What exactly do you mean with "unfalsifiable"? We actually measure atmospheric CO2, sea level and temperature; that's plenty falsifiability to me. And the greenhouse effect itself is not even in question. Fossil emissions are sacrificing people not just from climate change in the future, but right now from air pollution, too (about 5M deaths per year actually, according to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/).
- nandomrumber 7mo ago
  Climate science wants us to ignore the geological record and ignore geological processes. A cubic kilometre of lava at 1200 degrees C is enough energy for thirty (30!) hurricanes. It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated. But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.
  - slashdev 7mo ago
    > It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated. You're mistaking possible for probable. There's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and lot's of evidence that it's from climate change. In science you follow the evidence, not your pet theory. > But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age. I don't think you understand either science or ice ages.

NoLinkToMe 7mo ago

Closing Groningen didn't leave fossil in the ground. It took LNG from US and gas from Norway out of the ground instead. The decision to stop using fossil fuels is not tied to the decision to stop one of the sources of fossil fuels. They're divorced. Stopping fossil fuels requires investments in alternatives, and price mechanisms that disfavour fossils. Absent those mechanisms, closing one source of fossil just shifts demand to another source of fossil, which is exactly what happened. Meanwhile closing the gas source cost the NL a few hundred billion euros, the amount of money it needs to transition to renewables. Instead it is spending that on US LNG and Norwegian gas. The field shouldn't have been closed in 2023, it should've remained open until e.g. 2030 and all proceeds earmarked for massive energy transition subsidies. Instead we're just importing expensive fossil now and have insufficient money to meet our green ambitions.

Scarblac 7mo ago
> Closing Groningen didn't leave fossil in the ground. It took LNG from US and gas from Norway out of the ground instead. That was getting out of the ground and burned by someone anyway.