I like how the first sentence they say the UN chief was ‘publicly attacking’ the oil companies when he’s literally just stating fact lmao
We’ve made our choice, and we’re sticking to it.
Is this still news?
the reality is that will take decades. I’m not going to stop driving my gas fueled vehicle & neither is anyone who reads this
You would be right. If the government were to never get involved. “It’ll take decades for the whole country to prepare for nuclear fallout” “It’ll take decades for the country to protect itself from HIV” etc. etc. Every public health crisis needs to the government to get involved and mediate, that’s what civilization has been since the time of the Greeks.
it’s not in the government’s interest to royally fuck the economy back into the shitter, which is what rushing the transition from petroleum to more sustainable resources will do.
lol you think covid shortages were bad? international shipping, domestic train shipping, and local truck shipping ALL USE DIESEL - almost exclusively. merely changing all fuel systems without significant interruption to supply (untold millions dying of starvation) will will take decades - that’s WITH the government taking action.
The government’s interest is protecting it’s own system. If their has to be loss in profits for oil companies than so be it. Also you’re implying that the first to go off Diesel would be the supply line when obviously not. It would be power grids, the army then consumer cars than the supply chain. Do you think that any one with a functioning brain would try to make the supply lines go green first? You’re just doing a strawman.
un huh, sure.
Ahh you’re already wrong on that one. Sorry
deleted by creator
EVs tend to beat internal combustion cars even when the electricity comes entirely from fossil fuels, since the big power plants tend to be able to convert heat to electricity much more efficiently than a car engine can. But we don’t get all our power from fossil fuels these days – renewables, nuclear, and hydroelectric are all producing a significant portion. Depending on where you are it might be about half fossil fuels on average, but with huge regional variation.
We do need to transition away from fossil fuel power generation, but that’s a thing we can do in parallel to replacing our vehicle fleet.
(We also need to drive a lot less and use smaller vehicles on average, but that’s another topic.)
corporations will always utilize the cheapest method to generate revenue - legislating for or against that isnt going to do anyone any favors. it may be beneficial to instead offer tax deductions for utilizing solar or wind over coal, that seemed to work pretty well for the individual adoption of solar power…
for electrical generating companies, sometimes the cheapest method is coal/oil and sometimes it isnt. the infrastructure for using both already exists, after all. I think there was a headline recently that mentioned that solar power production was nearing competition levels in the USA with coal recently, or had surpassed it (in the summer months). until power storage tech has sufficiently matured you cant actually expect anyone who lives where it freezes to switch from oil/propane heat to electric heating in the winter months - and that’s well over half of the country.
deleted by creator
no, i said that it MAY be beneficial. it may not be. I have no idea. no one does - in fact there’s nothing but supposition.
a multiyear study will need to be performed by some impartial 3rd party and then presumably it would be another 15 to 20 years as corporations slowly switch to some alternate method (if it’s cheaper or better, but the jury is out on that one).
This sort of rhetoric is absolutely counter-productive. The human species is obviously not going to get wiped out even with the most extreme climate change scenarios.
Further, the tradeoffs of using fossil fuels are not even close to simple. Energy is wealth, and in a very real sense wealth is both health and quality of life. The whole campaign against fossil fuels frequently seems like the ultra-wealthy trying to consign the entire world middle class to poverty in order to keep polar bears pure (not even to save the species, just to keep them from going south and merging into a grolar bear population).
Okay, let’s cut through the jargon and keep it plain.
First up, your point about humans surviving extreme climate change. Sure, we won’t go extinct, but it’s gonna get messy. Imagine more hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. Plus, food could become scarce with messed up weather patterns. You’re right; it’s not the end of the world. But, it’s also not a picnic.
Next, you mention fossil fuels being tied to wealth and quality of life. Yeah, they’ve helped us a lot in the past. But it’s like running your car on dirty oil; it might keep going, but it’ll break down sooner. Also, let’s not forget, breathing polluted air ain’t great for health.
Your take about the rich trying to push the middle class into poverty to save polar bears seems off the mark. It’s not just about bears and ice. It’s about having a planet that’s comfortable for us to live on. Plus, the worst impacts of climate change and pollution hit poor folks the hardest. It’s not about making people poor; it’s about keeping people alive and healthy.
Lastly, you make it sound like it’s fossil fuels or poverty. That’s not the case. The cost of wind and solar power has plummeted in recent years. We can switch to renewables without making everyone poor. Actually, making the switch could create a lot of jobs and even save us money in the long run. So, it’s not just about hugging trees; it’s about green making green.
What’s your basis for making those factual claims about the future behavior of complex systems?
I mean, not that complex after a point. Shit’s getting hotter and more intense and it’s the result of human activity. We can either change the activity or accept that it’ll continue to get hotter and more intense.
How much hotter? What concrete harms will result? How much can that be reduced by different levels of reduction in fossil fuel use? What are the harms from that reduction? How do those harms compare? What are the second order effects and their consequences for all of the above?
Now, let’s step back and accept that nobody actually has reliable answers to most of those questions. Further, nobody actually gets to make global policy choices. Even worse, the people who do make national policy choices don’t seem to make those choices based on collecting the best data and then rationally trying to serve the public interest.
Nether the “humanity will die” and “climate change isn’t real” claims are honest attempts to accurately predict the future. They are strategic attempts to influence public perception in a way that is hoped to lead to specific kinds of policy choice that benefit coalitions of special interests at the expense of most of humanity. Most people would be significantly better off if neither of those buckets of policies were implemented.
I legitimately believe that you’ve prompted chatgpt to craft a response that is vapid and devoid of any particular conviction, and then just cut and pasted that response here.
So what do you suggest we do? Nothing?
We can’t “prove” or accurately predict anything so l let’s just keep shitting where we eat. Solid logic
The oil companies (at the very least Exxon) knew it decades ago. The only reason there’s a “debate” is to keep the business pumping profits.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
Human species, maybe not. Human technical civilization and horrific population decline? Yes, it is absolutely possible to wipe ourselves out.
A few million humans can probably survive huddled together near the poles, but for the billions that will die that’s not really distinguishable from human extinction.
