7 ms·
All we needed to do was stop burning fossil fuels we really are fucking dense.
by bamboozled 2mo ago
All we needed to do was stop burning fossil fuels we really are fucking dense.
- simulator5g 2mo agoAh yes it could have been so easy: All we needed to do was convince everyone in the world to behave a certain way.
- coldbrewed 2mo agoExactly, kinda like what we did with CFCs! Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
- anigbrowl 2mo agoThat was an awful lot simpler, int aht we (or rather governments) just had to lean on a small number of manufacturers and tell them to find alternatives for CFCs in their products. Nobody was up in arms saying 'my hairspray isn't the same without CFCs' or whatever. I'll bet the majority of consumers never even noticed the difference.
- marcosdumay 2mo ago> Nobody was up in arms saying 'my hairspray isn't the same without CFCs' or whatever. Oh, boy. There was a huge number of loud people complaining about that. And worst thing is that most of them only knew about the CFCs being replaced years after it stopped being in sprays.
- anigbrowl 2mo agoMy memory was that once satellite imagery of the ozone hole became available and it suddenly became something you could actually plot on a map the serious debate suddenly ended and complaining about 'they took our CFCs' became a kook issue. But looking up old media coverage, I see that dissatisfaction entrepreneurs like Rush Limbaugh aggressively milked the issue and then recycled successful tropes in other contexts.
- lucb1e 2mo agoMost people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
- gottorf 2mo ago> Most people agree on basic values This isn't even true at a local level, let alone at the global scale.
- fragmede 2mo agoYeah they do, on the really basic stuff, on a global level.
- lucb1e 2mo agoNot really the topic here but I actually think most people agree on most things; everyone wants to do right by them and theirs. We just focus on the areas where we differ in opinion on how to get there and have things to discuss
- HighGoldstein 2mo agoDo you believe half the human population should have the same rights as the other half? I'd say this is rather basic, yet the subject of much disagreement.
- lucb1e 2mo agoBit of an easy claim without concrete examples as I gave. Would hold more water if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value / wants to cause any of the things I mentioned such as forced relocation
- zahlman 2mo ago> if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value Look around the thread at how people are treating each other, and then keep in mind that HN is probably like 99th percentile for civility on the Internet in this regard. Look at what happens in threads about any other politically charged issue, for that matter. Heck, look how far the discussion will veer into politically charged off-topic matters, whenever the OP is about some meta-level "how to be convincing" "how to argue fairly" etc. point.
- DangitBobby 2mo agoIt really was very achievable, the main reason we didn't was we had a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
- parineum 2mo agoWe couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s. We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
- DangitBobby 2mo agoNuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? Setback after setback, all self-inflicted, people pretending we have these insurmountable hurdles all over the place. Pathetic for an empire that prides itself as a champion of industry. The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.
- doublerabbit 2mo agoTo be fair, Chernobyl didn't exactly help the cause.
- DangitBobby 2mo agoDefinitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pasquinelli 2mo agoindividual people don't matter, they're peanuts. otoh the single biggest consumer of fossil fuels is the US DOD. and why is that, really?
- otterley 2mo agoIs this actually true? That sounds suspicious. I’d love to see that data.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pasquinelli 2mo agohttps://www.ucs.org/resources/us-military-and-oil https://www.ucs.org/resources/us-military-and-oil that article links to the dod's own reporting.
- otterley 2mo agoYou said “the DoD is the single largest consumer of fossil fuels” (emphasis mine). That is a very different claim than what the article says, which is that the DoD uses “more oil than any other institution in the world." Oil is just one type of fossil fuel; natural gas and coal are others. I would also contend that an institution is a very narrow class of consumer. What you said is much more vague and could be reasonably interpreted to mean “the DoD uses more fossil fuels than the entire country of China,” which seems intuitively false.
- cumshitpiss 2mo ago[dead]
- alex_duf 2mo agoOne person's consumption doesn't matter, but multiply it by 8 billion and it does. It's like being in a traffic jam and complaining about the other people in the traffic jam... Dude, you're one of them.
- hliyan 2mo agoThere is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
- fHr 2mo agoIf only China and US could get their shit together....
- dluan 2mo agoChina is the only country that is seriously doing anything about anything. They've single handedly built more renewable energy capacity than every other country combined, they've pulled millions of diesel and gasoline cars off roads, reforested one of the world's biggest deserts, this year they've finally reduced coal usage, and next year the long awaited Tokamak is set to fire for the first time. The US is busy sending warships across the planet to blow up oil refineries which will be rebuilt. It's not bad enough we are busy grinding sand, but we are actively making things worse.
- discordance 2mo agoAnd with that they built the manufacturing engine that is supplying the rest of the world with renewable tech
- chrischen 2mo agoTo be fair, closing the straight of hormuz has probably put a dent in carbon emissions.
- dluan 2mo agoTemporarily, all of the middle east oil infrastructure will be rebuilt because their biggest customer still has no real tangible plan to wean itself off.
- thelastgallon 2mo agoIs US the biggest customer?
- SJC_Hacker 2mo agoChina is their biggest customer
- tomjen3 2mo agoWould have been doable if we could have switched to nuclear, but no.
- mort96 2mo agoIt would've helped a ton but it's not like electricity generation is the only source of emissions. You can't run a car or a plane on nuclear power. You can technically run a cargo ship on nuclear power but that's also not gonna happen. Yet transport is the second largest source of emissions. Batteries have only recently-ish gotten energy dense and cheap enough for electric cars to be competitive, completely different solutions are needed for long distance shipping by sea or air. It's the same situation across many other sectors like agriculture, construction and waste management. Lots of things causing emissions that's not electricity generation.
- vixen99 2mo agoAs Romanians will tell you in August 2026, you can't run nuclear power stations without a cooling mechanism. In this case, it's Danube which is failing to offer that. Fusion is almost nowhere to be seen.
- ssl-3 2mo agoIt would indeed have helped a ton. It's important to not let perfection be the enemy of good. If we just wait around forever for a perfect solution to appear, then we'll simply be waiting around forever. That's not the path of progress.
- mort96 2mo agoI agree. I just wanted to point out that to "stop burning fossil fuels" requires more than green electricity generation. Green electricity generation is 100% necessary, just not in itself sufficient, as was implied by "Would have been doable if we could have switched to nuclear".
- ssl-3 2mo ago
- dgellow 2mo agoI’m a capitalist, but the only conclusion I can arrive at is that neo liberal capitalism makes it impossible to « do the right thing ». What we have is the logical result of the incentives at play
- cumshitpiss 2mo ago[dead]
- vrganj 2mo agoI have come to the same conclusion, but let me ask you, how can you still be a capitalist having had that insight? Why would you support a system that you recognize makes it impossible to do the right thing even as we're dying from its consequences?
- vixen99 2mo agoYou're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. Concern isn't action but it's a necessary prerequisite for it.
- vrganj 2mo ago> Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value Value for who? Value as determined by who? > Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. You're commenting on it right now. Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. How long do you think we can keep going like this? > Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. You can compare the results of those 126 years right here: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTempGraphLN/GlobalTempGraphLN-superJumbo.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/01/23/learning/GlobalTe... Regarding your quality of life claim, let me refer back to the burning forests, drying rivers etc. Would you call that an improvement? Clearly, its not going great. And action is actively being sabotaged by the most capitalist major power: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-international-bullying.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/trump-climate-int... So how do we proceed with all this in mind? How long can we keep optimizing for capital self-reproduction at the expense of the base conditions we survive on? The incentive structure does not allow for making the systemic changes required for continued thriving of humanity. What good is it then? How is it anything but a suicide pact?
- vixen99 2mo agoNot true. El Nino (increases CO2) and Albedo (long term - it's decreasing) are problematic issues in this area. If it's settled science why bother to even consider other factors? Doubtful if humanity would survive the catastrophe resulting from a global interdiction of the kind you suggest and we're not dense for understanding that. Greening of the planet (plants need carbon to grow) which has contributed $trillions to world productivity would also taper off. Moreover the related sulfate emissions actually mask warming - reductions in these emissions is related to some of the recent temperature increases. So you could likely get a temporary spike in warming. All that said, there are sensible routes to reducing human influence on the planet.
- epolanski 2mo agoThere's way more to climate change than fossil fuels: consuming less and changing diet. A single cow alone requires lots of crop, water, and produces tons of methane (which is 200 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide). Fishing is another earth destroying endeavor. A single boat, a single one, practicing bottom trawling is more dangerous to the environment than the emissions of tens of thousands of cars. In a single day it can have the same impact of deforestation on an area big as a montain. Seriously, stop believing the fossil fuels gaslighting. They are indeed a problem, but the cause for climate change is all of our toxic habits and our incapacity to say "enough", take the bus or eath healthier (for us and the planet).
- askvictor 2mo agoBy far the biggest source of carbon emissions is coal. The others make an impact too, but if we're not addressing coal, there's almost no point addressing the others.
- nozzlegear 2mo agoWhat are fishing boats doing that could cause so much emissions in a single day?
- epolanski 2mo agoYou're dragging heavy nets on the sea floor releasing heavy amounts of carbon dioxide and destroying ecosystems that are net contributors to decarbonization like seaweed, seagrass, etc. A single boat with a single net can do insane damage in a single day. The problem is: when it comes to industrial food production, both fish and meat are insanely taxing on the environment. But people, we, *don't want to accept that how they eat destroys the planet* I can understand that. I already have many thoughts and problems, do I also have to feel guilty for what I consume and eat? But it's the reality, and focusing on transport alone is the narrative that keeps accelerating how fast we kill the planet.
- nozzlegear 2mo agoInteresting, thanks for explaining. I'm vegetarian and thereby don't eat fish, but I didn't know fishing had such an impact on the environment.
- bluerooibos 2mo agoOne positive is that solar (and probably other renewables too) prices are plummeting and are now the cheapest way to generate power - so in economic terms, I hope this trend continues and accelerates even more to the point where even fossil fuel addicts can't resist putting a solar panel on their roof. In the UK and other European countries, I see every month we're breaking records on the percentage of power generated from renewables. Check out https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live - it shows the UK is currently generating 30%+ of it's power from solar, which is incredible.
- bamboozled 2mo agoI hope it continues but I hope we make it too.
- alt227 2mo ago[flagged]
- eclipticplane 2mo agoMeanwhile, the US is paying the German energy firm RWE $1.2 billion to stop a off shore wind farm that was already under construction. Total payouts are over $4 billion to _stop_ adding electricity supply.
- bluerooibos 2mo agoWell, that's because Trump agreed to do that in exchange for campaign donations from Big Oil. I'm still not sure how Americans haven't ousted him.
- zkmon 2mo agoWe wanted to exploit all natural resources to maximum extent using our science and tech without any regard to the side effects. The advantage is free. It helps our business. Business gains are human progress. Tech is wonderful. What are you talking about?
- bamboozled 2mo agoSolar and nuclear are also tech.