3 ms·

Do you allow any room at all for a compromise? Or must you assume that I mean, "completely and totally abandon fossil fuels even where it doesn't make sense to

Do you allow any room at all for a compromise? Or must you assume that I mean, "completely and totally abandon fossil fuels even where it doesn't make sense to do so"? > Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths ... have dropped precipitously over the past century... What? Are you sure this isn't due to better construction materials and practices? I haven't heard this before. > ...and fossil fuels come out ahead of everything else out there, short of nuclear. This probably isn't true, although it depends a lot on how you measure "ahead" and which numbers you choose to run with. If we're looking at EROI (or EROEI -- I guess it's lost a letter recently), then oil is somewhere between 10:1 and 5:1, and falling, and that puts it behind wind and hydro, but ahead of nuclear and solar. (I was surprised by the numbers on nuclear years ago when I first looked at this.) e.g. http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-... There are also some strong arguments for the adverse health effects of burning coal and oil (e.g. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-a..., or just go live in Beijing for a year and try not to get a respiratory infection). I am all in favor of continuing to produce and consume oil where it makes sense to do so. I am also all in favor of continuing to develop replacements for oil as expediently as practical. Do you think that's an unreasonable position?

maxharris 12y ago
> Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths ... have dropped precipitously over the past century... What? Are you sure this isn't due to better construction materials and practices? I haven't heard this before. Construction materials and practices, made possible by what fuel? What powers the excavators, drives the furnaces to used to make steel that goes into everything from rebar to Catepillar tractors to the steel toe in the foreman's boot? What source of energy do people use to get a log from a mountainside to the mill, through it, and then to your backyard? What are the hardhats that everyone wears made of? (Plastic, which is made from oil.) Need I go on? This same energy source is very cheap. That means that more people can afford new(er) homes. Homes which are equipped with better features that help them resist natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, extreme heat, cold, etc. Suppose energy were 50% more expensive. It doesn't take an economist to predict that under those conditions, many homes wouldn't be as nice, new and safe. How many more people would have to do without air conditioning? Clean drinking water? How many more people wouldn't be able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter?
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  I think you're reaching quite a bit here. Oil is demonstrably more than 50% more expensive now than it was anytime before 1974, even adjusted for inflation. (I just double-checked.) You seem to be saying that the price of energy not only underpins the entire world economy, but that it is the greatest factor in the world economy almost to the exclusion of everything else. I cannot believe that would actually be your argument, so I must be misreading you. While the cost of energy is certainly a big factor (and I'd readily agree that cheap energy is largely responsible for the industrial age), the world civilization would have collapsed already if it were tied that closely to the barrel price of oil.
maxharris 12y ago
I am all in favor of continuing to produce and consume oil where it makes sense to do so. I am also all in favor of continuing to develop replacements for oil as expediently as practical. Do you think that's an unreasonable position? I am in favor of people developing any new technology they see fit, on their own accord, and at their own financial risk. If something is truly better, it will win on an open market. A recent example: when people switched to smartphones, no one had to ban/levy huge taxes on feature phones, or give Apple huge sums of taxpayer money for decades to come up with the iPhone. Edit: By the way, on the topic of subsidies: many environmentalists argue that fossil fuels get massive subsidies, and that they need subsidies to compete. First of all, this is not true, if you compare the amounts of money redirected per energy unit released by energy source. On that topic, here's a revealing question: if the subsidy argument were genuine, why are there no calls by environmentalists for the abolishment of all energy subsidies? Edit 2: s/the greens/many environmentalists/
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  I'm glad to hear you agree that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels, to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide. That sounds like a fantastic idea. ...Or, were you only suggesting we stop subsidizing the things you don't like? edit: you edited your comment while I was writing my reply. Had your comment had the phrase "the greens" in it to begin with, I wouldn't've bothered replying to either of your comments.
  - maxharris 12y ago
    Ok, I'll change it to "environmentalists," but somehow I don't think that'll help much.
  - maxharris 12y ago
    to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide Which works out to what per kWh? And what's the comparable number for wind? Solar? Or even wind and solar combined?
    - 12y ago

maxharris 12y ago

> Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths ... have dropped precipitously over the past century... What? Are you sure this isn't due to better construction materials and practices? I haven't heard this before. Construction materials and practices, made possible by what fuel? What powers the excavators, drives the furnaces to used to make steel that goes into everything from rebar to Catepillar tractors to the steel toe in the foreman's boot? What source of energy do people use to get a log from a mountainside to the mill, through it, and then to your backyard? What are the hardhats that everyone wears made of? (Plastic, which is made from oil.) Need I go on? This same energy source is very cheap. That means that more people can afford new(er) homes. Homes which are equipped with better features that help them resist natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, extreme heat, cold, etc. Suppose energy were 50% more expensive. It doesn't take an economist to predict that under those conditions, many homes wouldn't be as nice, new and safe. How many more people would have to do without air conditioning? Clean drinking water? How many more people wouldn't be able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter?

thaumaturgy 12y ago
I think you're reaching quite a bit here. Oil is demonstrably more than 50% more expensive now than it was anytime before 1974, even adjusted for inflation. (I just double-checked.) You seem to be saying that the price of energy not only underpins the entire world economy, but that it is the greatest factor in the world economy almost to the exclusion of everything else. I cannot believe that would actually be your argument, so I must be misreading you. While the cost of energy is certainly a big factor (and I'd readily agree that cheap energy is largely responsible for the industrial age), the world civilization would have collapsed already if it were tied that closely to the barrel price of oil.

maxharris 12y ago

I am all in favor of continuing to produce and consume oil where it makes sense to do so. I am also all in favor of continuing to develop replacements for oil as expediently as practical. Do you think that's an unreasonable position? I am in favor of people developing any new technology they see fit, on their own accord, and at their own financial risk. If something is truly better, it will win on an open market. A recent example: when people switched to smartphones, no one had to ban/levy huge taxes on feature phones, or give Apple huge sums of taxpayer money for decades to come up with the iPhone. Edit: By the way, on the topic of subsidies: many environmentalists argue that fossil fuels get massive subsidies, and that they need subsidies to compete. First of all, this is not true, if you compare the amounts of money redirected per energy unit released by energy source. On that topic, here's a revealing question: if the subsidy argument were genuine, why are there no calls by environmentalists for the abolishment of all energy subsidies? Edit 2: s/the greens/many environmentalists/

thaumaturgy 12y ago
I'm glad to hear you agree that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels, to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide. That sounds like a fantastic idea. ...Or, were you only suggesting we stop subsidizing the things you don't like? edit: you edited your comment while I was writing my reply. Had your comment had the phrase "the greens" in it to begin with, I wouldn't've bothered replying to either of your comments.
- maxharris 12y ago
  Ok, I'll change it to "environmentalists," but somehow I don't think that'll help much.
- maxharris 12y ago
  to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year or so worldwide Which works out to what per kWh? And what's the comparable number for wind? Solar? Or even wind and solar combined?
  - 12y ago