6 ms·

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity,

by tordrt 4mo ago

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

pietervdvn 4mo ago
The fossil fuel industry is both the most subsidized industry worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies) and the second most expensive source of energy (at least for electricity production). The only energy source that is more expensive is nuclear (!).
- tordrt 4mo ago
  The second most expensive source of energy is misleading in terms of whole picture. They are using a theoretical cost per kwh generated. You have to account for the much higher infrastructure and systemic cost of electricity generation you can not control (wind/solar). You cant simply use wind or solar without pairing it with an controllable source like hydro, gas, coal or batteries. Which is why the world is still very much using gas and coal (and still building more). Renewables are a cheap and good supplement to these sources, you just cant replace them cheaply (yet). Regarding "the most subsidized industry worldwide", this wikipedia article does not mention any tax revenue and taxation of these companies. Which are stil very often government cash cows and often pays much more taxes than other corporations. The subsidies are straight to citizen's gas tanks and heating bills. "Subsidies are mainly on consumption,[3] such as a lower sales tax on natural gas for residential heating; or subsidies on production, such as tax breaks on exploration for oil." In my country Norway for example, we have tax breaks on exploration to incentivize investment in exploration, but you have to take into account that these companies have an 80 corporate tax rate! In many petro states they are straight up nationalized companies.
- haaz 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Gomotono 4mo ago
    The oil companies pull out oil from the ground, a non sustainable resource which also creates direct damage to our own planet due to it being consumed/burned. This is a subsidie. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels this is absolutly true. Plenty of people around me have solar panels on the roof, a heatpump and energy storage. They are independent of any oil company like shell (who earned great thanks to the oil shortage?!). Your argument regarding cost was borderline a few years ago and it might still be borderline in countries were oil is very cheap and we still ignore any ecological impact and responsiblity but overall no oil is more expensive. Btw. just that you are aware of: A Heatpump can make out of 1 energy unit gas more energy. A EV engine has an efficency ov 95-99%. So everyone who just burns gas directly (ICE or heating at home) is wasting energy. It would be more efficient if you would make that oil/gas into energy, use the process heat of it for remote heating and use the elictricty directly in an EV or for a heatpump.
  - tomhow 4mo ago
    > You are an idiot Hey, this is not OK on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
90d 4mo ago
It is a tricky situation isn't it? We wouldn't have gotten where we are without fossil fuels, but now we realize they are not sustainable to be dependent on and we cannot continue this level of growth. I don't think it is actually possible using current means to power what we have come to know as a "first-world lifestyle" for the majority of the planet.
- Gomotono 4mo ago
  Thats not true. We don't know if we would be able to be were we at. There is also no value in this. If we owuldn't known about progress through oil and gas, who would say that we would be unable to get to the same point just a 100 years later? No own would be hurt if we would have achieved this 100 years later but healthier. It was also ignored on purpose. Oil companies knew very well, researchers knew. Apparently there were big demonstrations here in germany in the 70ties so our parents knew too. Life came inbetween apparently. And from a pure calculation point of view: Its actually very easy to switch over to renewable. As of today, we do have everything we need. The only thing missing is people doing it. And just to be clear: it would repay itself.
  - tordrt 4mo ago
    How would we do the whole industrial revolution thing on whale oil and lumber? Whales would most certainly be extinct by now, thats for sure. 100 years later is an immense amount of extra human suffering, not to say that reaching current level would most certainly take much much longer than 100 extra years. Im sorry but this whole tirade is just delusional. Its cheaper and better to replace all use of fossil fuels with renewables? Why are we not doing it? Waiting to here your grand conspiracy as of why people are not "doing it". Why did china build over 50(78GW) new large scale coal plants last year when they could get so much cheaper renewable?
    - Gomotono 4mo ago
      Because people didn't care that oil and gas is breaking our planet 100 years ago. Or didn't knew and capitalism made the people in power very very rich very fast. At that time we still lived and heated normally. For sure the brits destroyed a lot of their trees but you know? They could. What do you think would have happened if we had a small population collaps at that time and HAD to consume sustainable? We would be less people for sure, but we wouldn't have killed the missing people, they would have not been created in the first place. We created the first solar panel 1883. The first EV in 1884. China is still using coal because they are in the same dilemma as we all are: we ignored the impact and keep the status quo. But China build a lot of coal plants for renewing aging ones and they are massivle building out solar. So why are my neighbours not doing it? Man i talked to sooooo many people about this, are you ready? Because people don't care. Or they don't like new things. Or they don't understand why it would be better. Yes thats the conspiricy. People can't do the math, don't care about climate change or just don't want something to change. Everyone i know who has solar panels on the roof, a small battery and heat pump literlay saving money and would never switch back. Every single one of them.
eigenspace 4mo ago
The slavery part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that slavery doesn't provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that it's horrible to invest or support building out any slavery production whatsoever? Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to Africa... ___________________________________ Snide comparisons aside, I'd just say that we can accept that fossil fuels played a gigantic and important role in getting us to where we are, and also acknowledge that we'll continue to need fossil fuels in the near future, but that does *not* mean that we need to accept that investment in even more expansion of the fossil fuel industry is a good idea.
- tordrt 4mo ago
  Slavery is evil. Fossil fuels is actually still a net good for humanity. E.g. the consequences of removing access to these energy sources, would be overwhelmingly more negative for humanity right now, than the consequence of global warming. The transition is moving ahead, it just takes time, and we need more technological breakthroughs and innovation. Trying to attack production instead of solving demand, can cause serious consequences, in which the poorest countries in the world would suffer the most.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4mo ago
    Doesn’t one major fund reducing investment in fossil fuels and increasing investment in renewable energy precisely migrate towards the notion of helping solve demand and encourage technological breakthroughs and innovation?
    - tordrt 4mo ago
      I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption. The most efficient one would just be a co2 tax, to not favoritize some emission over others. This is mostly fine in western rich countries, and we already do this to some extent by putting extra taxes and fees on petrol, carbon emissions and stuff. Becoming reliant on countries you dont want to be reliant on, and pretending we dont desperately need this to get the wheels turning is a strategic blunder. Higher global fossil fuels costs have strong negative effects on peoples welfare, especially in poorer countries. Whenever we get high oil/gas prices, we get price jumps on artificial fertilizer, food, transport and energy. Everything gets more expensive. Its straight up national emergency when something threatens supply of oil and gas in many of these countries when we get events like closing of the hormuz strait.
i_cannot_hack 4mo ago
Nobody is pretending fossil fuels are not producing value, if they did not nobody would bother using them in the first place. The argument is about the fact that they produce relatively short term value for the person using them, at the externalized expense of polluting the atmosphere and causing long-term environmental instability and destruction for every subsequent generation for the foreseeable future. Coastal regions (and whole islands like the Maldives) disapppearing under the ocean is immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. Ocean acidification destroying marine ecosystems is an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. More frequent and more extreme hurricanes is an an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. And on and on...
- tordrt 4mo ago
  I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity. I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment. Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient. Im not sure our current pace of reducing emissions is that horrible. There are reasons to why it takes time. I might be too optimistic, but I think we will largely solve human issues. Nature as you point out, im worried about, although I know less about. And its hard to quantify what the value is for us.
  - moogly 4mo ago
    > Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. Who? Other than strawmen, I mean.
    - tordrt 4mo ago
ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
If it's so valuable why don't you want to buy it from the Russians and the Gulf?
- stingraycharles 4mo ago
  We do want to buy it from the Gulf. It’s just that a certain country started a certain war and this is now off the table.
- tordrt 4mo ago
  I think Europe happily buys from the Gulf currently, and reluctantly buys from Russia if they have to. Its more about being self sufficient. This is something that can easily be weaponized against us. E.g. Russia using Europes own money to finance their invasion of Ukraine.
stingraycharles 4mo ago
It’s more about trying to help the cleaner energy sources get off the ground, rather than a purely financial incentive.
- tordrt 4mo ago
  How much extra investment to you think green tech companies get for pension funds excluding investment in this sector? They also only invest in publicly listed companies, not green startups. To me it seems like the exclusion is based on them viewing it immoral to invest in these companies.. I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it and use the money to subsidize green tech/industry.
  - stingraycharles 4mo ago
    > I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it With the power that these companies have over the politicians through lobbying, that’s unlikely to happen.

by tordrt 4mo ago

pietervdvn 4mo ago

The fossil fuel industry is both the most subsidized industry worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies) and the second most expensive source of energy (at least for electricity production). The only energy source that is more expensive is nuclear (!).

tordrt 4mo ago
The second most expensive source of energy is misleading in terms of whole picture. They are using a theoretical cost per kwh generated. You have to account for the much higher infrastructure and systemic cost of electricity generation you can not control (wind/solar). You cant simply use wind or solar without pairing it with an controllable source like hydro, gas, coal or batteries. Which is why the world is still very much using gas and coal (and still building more). Renewables are a cheap and good supplement to these sources, you just cant replace them cheaply (yet). Regarding "the most subsidized industry worldwide", this wikipedia article does not mention any tax revenue and taxation of these companies. Which are stil very often government cash cows and often pays much more taxes than other corporations. The subsidies are straight to citizen's gas tanks and heating bills. "Subsidies are mainly on consumption,[3] such as a lower sales tax on natural gas for residential heating; or subsidies on production, such as tax breaks on exploration for oil." In my country Norway for example, we have tax breaks on exploration to incentivize investment in exploration, but you have to take into account that these companies have an 80 corporate tax rate! In many petro states they are straight up nationalized companies.
haaz 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Gomotono 4mo ago
  The oil companies pull out oil from the ground, a non sustainable resource which also creates direct damage to our own planet due to it being consumed/burned. This is a subsidie. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels this is absolutly true. Plenty of people around me have solar panels on the roof, a heatpump and energy storage. They are independent of any oil company like shell (who earned great thanks to the oil shortage?!). Your argument regarding cost was borderline a few years ago and it might still be borderline in countries were oil is very cheap and we still ignore any ecological impact and responsiblity but overall no oil is more expensive. Btw. just that you are aware of: A Heatpump can make out of 1 energy unit gas more energy. A EV engine has an efficency ov 95-99%. So everyone who just burns gas directly (ICE or heating at home) is wasting energy. It would be more efficient if you would make that oil/gas into energy, use the process heat of it for remote heating and use the elictricty directly in an EV or for a heatpump.
- tomhow 4mo ago
  > You are an idiot Hey, this is not OK on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

90d 4mo ago

It is a tricky situation isn't it? We wouldn't have gotten where we are without fossil fuels, but now we realize they are not sustainable to be dependent on and we cannot continue this level of growth. I don't think it is actually possible using current means to power what we have come to know as a "first-world lifestyle" for the majority of the planet.

Gomotono 4mo ago
Thats not true. We don't know if we would be able to be were we at. There is also no value in this. If we owuldn't known about progress through oil and gas, who would say that we would be unable to get to the same point just a 100 years later? No own would be hurt if we would have achieved this 100 years later but healthier. It was also ignored on purpose. Oil companies knew very well, researchers knew. Apparently there were big demonstrations here in germany in the 70ties so our parents knew too. Life came inbetween apparently. And from a pure calculation point of view: Its actually very easy to switch over to renewable. As of today, we do have everything we need. The only thing missing is people doing it. And just to be clear: it would repay itself.
- tordrt 4mo ago
  How would we do the whole industrial revolution thing on whale oil and lumber? Whales would most certainly be extinct by now, thats for sure. 100 years later is an immense amount of extra human suffering, not to say that reaching current level would most certainly take much much longer than 100 extra years. Im sorry but this whole tirade is just delusional. Its cheaper and better to replace all use of fossil fuels with renewables? Why are we not doing it? Waiting to here your grand conspiracy as of why people are not "doing it". Why did china build over 50(78GW) new large scale coal plants last year when they could get so much cheaper renewable?
  - Gomotono 4mo ago
    Because people didn't care that oil and gas is breaking our planet 100 years ago. Or didn't knew and capitalism made the people in power very very rich very fast. At that time we still lived and heated normally. For sure the brits destroyed a lot of their trees but you know? They could. What do you think would have happened if we had a small population collaps at that time and HAD to consume sustainable? We would be less people for sure, but we wouldn't have killed the missing people, they would have not been created in the first place. We created the first solar panel 1883. The first EV in 1884. China is still using coal because they are in the same dilemma as we all are: we ignored the impact and keep the status quo. But China build a lot of coal plants for renewing aging ones and they are massivle building out solar. So why are my neighbours not doing it? Man i talked to sooooo many people about this, are you ready? Because people don't care. Or they don't like new things. Or they don't understand why it would be better. Yes thats the conspiricy. People can't do the math, don't care about climate change or just don't want something to change. Everyone i know who has solar panels on the roof, a small battery and heat pump literlay saving money and would never switch back. Every single one of them.

eigenspace 4mo ago

The slavery part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that slavery doesn't provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that it's horrible to invest or support building out any slavery production whatsoever? Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to Africa... ___________________________________ Snide comparisons aside, I'd just say that we can accept that fossil fuels played a gigantic and important role in getting us to where we are, and also acknowledge that we'll continue to need fossil fuels in the near future, but that does *not* mean that we need to accept that investment in even more expansion of the fossil fuel industry is a good idea.

tordrt 4mo ago
Slavery is evil. Fossil fuels is actually still a net good for humanity. E.g. the consequences of removing access to these energy sources, would be overwhelmingly more negative for humanity right now, than the consequence of global warming. The transition is moving ahead, it just takes time, and we need more technological breakthroughs and innovation. Trying to attack production instead of solving demand, can cause serious consequences, in which the poorest countries in the world would suffer the most.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4mo ago
  Doesn’t one major fund reducing investment in fossil fuels and increasing investment in renewable energy precisely migrate towards the notion of helping solve demand and encourage technological breakthroughs and innovation?
  - tordrt 4mo ago
    I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption. The most efficient one would just be a co2 tax, to not favoritize some emission over others. This is mostly fine in western rich countries, and we already do this to some extent by putting extra taxes and fees on petrol, carbon emissions and stuff. Becoming reliant on countries you dont want to be reliant on, and pretending we dont desperately need this to get the wheels turning is a strategic blunder. Higher global fossil fuels costs have strong negative effects on peoples welfare, especially in poorer countries. Whenever we get high oil/gas prices, we get price jumps on artificial fertilizer, food, transport and energy. Everything gets more expensive. Its straight up national emergency when something threatens supply of oil and gas in many of these countries when we get events like closing of the hormuz strait.

i_cannot_hack 4mo ago

Nobody is pretending fossil fuels are not producing value, if they did not nobody would bother using them in the first place. The argument is about the fact that they produce relatively short term value for the person using them, at the externalized expense of polluting the atmosphere and causing long-term environmental instability and destruction for every subsequent generation for the foreseeable future. Coastal regions (and whole islands like the Maldives) disapppearing under the ocean is immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. Ocean acidification destroying marine ecosystems is an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. More frequent and more extreme hurricanes is an an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. And on and on...

tordrt 4mo ago
I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity. I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment. Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient. Im not sure our current pace of reducing emissions is that horrible. There are reasons to why it takes time. I might be too optimistic, but I think we will largely solve human issues. Nature as you point out, im worried about, although I know less about. And its hard to quantify what the value is for us.
- moogly 4mo ago
  > Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. Who? Other than strawmen, I mean.
  - tordrt 4mo ago

ZeroGravitas 4mo ago

If it's so valuable why don't you want to buy it from the Russians and the Gulf?

stingraycharles 4mo ago
We do want to buy it from the Gulf. It’s just that a certain country started a certain war and this is now off the table.
tordrt 4mo ago
I think Europe happily buys from the Gulf currently, and reluctantly buys from Russia if they have to. Its more about being self sufficient. This is something that can easily be weaponized against us. E.g. Russia using Europes own money to finance their invasion of Ukraine.

stingraycharles 4mo ago

It’s more about trying to help the cleaner energy sources get off the ground, rather than a purely financial incentive.

tordrt 4mo ago
How much extra investment to you think green tech companies get for pension funds excluding investment in this sector? They also only invest in publicly listed companies, not green startups. To me it seems like the exclusion is based on them viewing it immoral to invest in these companies.. I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it and use the money to subsidize green tech/industry.
- stingraycharles 4mo ago
  > I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it With the power that these companies have over the politicians through lobbying, that’s unlikely to happen.