Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

newhumanist.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 183 posts

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#31

Post by greglindahl »

anotherturn wrote: post #25
wolfram74 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can start an iron fertilization project for around 20k in boat rental fees + legal fees for illegal ocean dumping. Major companies do it for less altruistic reasons all the time.

This is an interesting suggestion - though I'm not sure of the net effect of iron fertilization? How much iron achieves what? I guess the legal fees cover dumping of anything ranging from nuclear waste to rubbish destined for recycling? I'd assume one could get those waived if there was a proven positive effect of the fertilization.

Recent studies say that iron fertilization sequesters a lot less carbon than you might think, so maybe we should defer worrying about the economics until we know how much carbon it sequesters?

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#32

Post by astrange »

cpprototypes wrote: post #27

I wish some billionaire would start a chain of carbon neutral gas stations. I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if I knew it was carbon neutral. There are several ways the gas could be carbon neutral, either through production (solar/wind into fuel creation) or offsets (plant trees or carbon sequestration). Instead of slowly trying to change our transportation infrastructure to EV, which will take decades, this could…

The cool startup thing here is gas delivery a.k.a. "the Uber of gas stations". It seems like they could add this as a service, since they need something as a reason to exist.

(this is a submarine comment, I don't want Yoshi to go out of business or I'll have to inflate my own tires again)

Or, well, you could buy carbon credits…

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#33

Post by cpprototypes »

zachcb wrote: post #29
cpprototypes wrote: post #27

I wish some billionaire would start a chain of carbon neutral gas stations. I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if I knew it was carbon neutral. There are several ways the gas could be carbon neutral, either through production (solar/wind into fuel creation) or offsets (plant trees or carbon sequestration). Instead of slowly trying to change our transportation infrastructure to EV, which will take decades, this could…

That gas station would be empty 95% of the time because it wouldn't succeed. Most people don't want to spend any extra money on things that they won't directly benefit from.

I think organics food shows this isn't true. These gas stations would first target the affluent liberal markets. The marketing could be, don't feel bad about buying that luxury BMW gas guzzler, come to Neutral gas station. The station should feel high end, like the Apple store of gas stations.

This is how organic food started with Whole Foods. And the same strategy could work here.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#34

Post by SwellJoe »

cpprototypes wrote: post #33
zachcb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gas station would be empty 95% of the time because it wouldn't succeed. Most people don't want to spend any extra money on things that they won't directly benefit from.

I think organics food shows this isn't true. These gas stations would first target the affluent liberal markets. The marketing could be, don't feel bad about buying that luxury BMW gas guzzler, come to Neutral gas station. The station should feel high end, like the Apple store of gas stations. This is how organic food started with Whole Foods. And the same strategy could work here.

Organic food is successful because a significant number of people believe it is healthier to eat than non-organic foods. The environmental impact is mostly not the reason. (Whether it is true that organic foods are healthier may be debatable, though for some foods the evidence is pretty good that it is.)

It won't work to use that angle for gas. Pure environmental plays are harder to find. There are people who pay more for renewable generated electricity, so that's a good parallel. I don't know what percentage, however, or if it'd be enough to support a chain of expensive gas stations.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#35

Post by josephagoss »

cpprototypes wrote: post #33
zachcb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gas station would be empty 95% of the time because it wouldn't succeed. Most people don't want to spend any extra money on things that they won't directly benefit from.

I think organics food shows this isn't true. These gas stations would first target the affluent liberal markets. The marketing could be, don't feel bad about buying that luxury BMW gas guzzler, come to Neutral gas station. The station should feel high end, like the Apple store of gas stations. This is how organic food started with Whole Foods. And the same strategy could work here.

I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison.

Everyone that I know that eats organic does it because they believe the food is better for their health.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#36

Post by SwellJoe »

sporkenfang wrote: post #26
im3w1l wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are living the Malthusian dystopia and the solution is as trivial to state as it is impossible to implement. A global one child policy.

Oddly, I think outright banning fossil fuel refinement and usage would do more. Being an only child seems to be a bit psychologically damaging. I could conjecture for pages here, but suffice it to say I believe one is better off having 2-3 children or none at all. Sure there can be situations like being raised closely with cousins or friends that are similarly beneficial, but kids absolutely must have close companion…

I agree with your first assertion, but would need to see some science on the second. I don't recall ever reading about negative outcomes for only children. On the contrary only children often have many advantages. More parental attention and time. More resources, all other things being equal. More money for college. More money for medical care (braces, eye care, etc.). More money and time for hobbies like sports or music.

I don't have any stake in this (no kids and unlikely to ever have any), but I feel like I've read that only children do better on many metrics than kids with siblings, all other factors being equal.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#37

Post by alphapapa »

sporkenfang wrote: post #26
im3w1l wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are living the Malthusian dystopia and the solution is as trivial to state as it is impossible to implement. A global one child policy.

Oddly, I think outright banning fossil fuel refinement and usage would do more. Being an only child seems to be a bit psychologically damaging. I could conjecture for pages here, but suffice it to say I believe one is better off having 2-3 children or none at all. Sure there can be situations like being raised closely with cousins or friends that are similarly beneficial, but kids absolutely must have close companion…

Fossil fuels are responsible, in multiple ways, for approximately 100% of the food eaten by human beings today. Additionally, fossil fuels are responsible for heating homes in winter, and for transportation networks which allow access to modern medical care.

Therefore, if fossil fuels were banned, wouldn't millions of people quickly die from starvation, cold, and lack of medical care? Wouldn't that be psychologically damaging to humans all over the world, to watch loved ones die and worry about one's own premature death?

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#38

Post by cpprototypes »

SwellJoe wrote: post #34
cpprototypes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think organics food shows this isn't true. These gas stations would first target the affluent liberal markets. The marketing could be, don't feel bad about buying that luxury BMW gas guzzler, come to Neutral gas station. The station should feel high end, like the Apple store of gas stations. This is how organic food started with Whole Foods. And the same strategy could work here.

Organic food is successful because a significant number of people believe it is healthier to eat than non-organic foods. The environmental impact is mostly not the reason. (Whether it is true that organic foods are healthier may be debatable, though for some foods the evidence is pretty good that it is.) It won't work to use that angle for gas. Pure environmental plays are harder to find. There are people who pay mor…

This was true years ago, but I think times are different now. Theres a feeling of near panic among many as the effects of climate change become more obvious and the new Trump environmental policies. I think theres strong desire to do something and this could tap into that.

Also by being high end, theres opportunity to be very different. These stations shouldn't even look like traditional stations. They could provide services that appeal to affluent markets and provide good profit margin. This will be necessary at first because raising gas price alone won't be enough to cover costs.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#39

Post by anigbrowl »

anotherturn wrote: post #12
greglindahl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Become a vegetarian. Not only will you not contribute to the fish market, but you'll also reduce the amount of fertilizer flowing into the ocean.

To make a dent I suspect becoming a vegetarian isn't enough - you'd have to become an effective-evangelical vegetarian. So, given that fear and shock tactics are failing - how do I convince the world (or a sizeable portion of it) to become vegetarian? I heard a podcast recently about a guy working to produce real meat from plant matter. This would probably be an effective solution. By spending time otherwise used for…

The best way to convince a large number of people is to write an emotionally powerful novel or screenplay. Fictional characters are by far the most powerful role models in society, so tell that story.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#40

Post by andrewwhartion »

cpprototypes wrote: post #27

I wish some billionaire would start a chain of carbon neutral gas stations. I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if I knew it was carbon neutral. There are several ways the gas could be carbon neutral, either through production (solar/wind into fuel creation) or offsets (plant trees or carbon sequestration). Instead of slowly trying to change our transportation infrastructure to EV, which will take decades, this could…

Quick 'back of the envelope' (literally) calculations:

Toyota Camry [0] Dual VVT-i engine gets 7.9L/100km and 183gm/km emissions. That roughly works out as 2.3kg CO2 per 1L petrol.

Therefore, a tonne of CO2 is produced for every ~430L petrol. Petrol is around AUD $1.40/L, so about AUD $600 of petrol.

Carbon credits [1] are worth about $14 euros per tonne of CO2, which is say AUD $19.

Therefore 'carbon neutral' petrol adds about AUD$20 to AUD$600 worth of fuel, or about 3-4%.

Sound about right? I could stomach that, considering the fuels price goes up and down all the time anyway...

[0] http://www.toyota.com.au/camry/features/economy-and-environm...

[1] http://www.goldstandard.org/blog-item/carbon-pricing-what-ca...

EDIT: formatting...

Post reply on HN