how many people are able to live due to fossil fuels?
Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
51–60 of 72 posts
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like China could change this -- they have a dire need for vastly more energy as their per-capita GDP grows, and they are well aware of the problems caused in the big cities from burning coal. Nuclear could provide far more power and improve air quality. The government could simply prioritize development of modern nuclear power without much worry about NIMBY pushback.
Unlike the US, China is building new nuclear plants.
The US has 2 reactors under construction...
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fossil fuels are the single greatest cause of everything that separates how we live today from how people lived at the beginning of the 19th century up to and including the huge surge in sustained human population. Look to the Haber-Bosch process for just one example of this sustainability. There’s no free lunch. It came with side effects.
Yep. Haber-Bosch unleashed synthetic nitrogen used essentially in all of agriculture (worldwide). Certainly made it possible to feed the hug surge of people.
>> Certainly made it possible to feed the hug surge of people.
Or... Haber-Bosch made it possible to have that huge surge in people?
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#54In other words social cost of fossil fuels is relatively low.
Without fossil fuels billions wouldn't be born, let alone live longer.
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#55I think talking about deaths is too binary when we are looking at air pollution, since I would imagine most of the deaths are from peope who have other conditions that air pollution is making worse, as opposed to things like car crashes where even very healthy people are killed. Looking at how much air pollution reduces life expectancy is a better measure, and is what they talk about in the study linked to by this ar…
> So they estimate air pollution from fossil fuels lowers the average life expectancy by 1 year worldwide. Pretty significant. At the same time the opposite point can be made: fossil fuels have disproportionately increased life expectancy worldwide from pre-industrial levels, and made us able to sustain way more human beings on Earth. Talking only about the negative aspects is only half of the discussion.
I think most people can agree that up until this point, burning fossil fuels have been a net positive. But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some point it becomes worth it to pay the cost of renewables rather than continue to have a ~1 year reduced life expectancy. So I think the most important comparison is renewables vs fossil fuels.
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fossil fuels are responsible for a majority of our current heat and electricity generation as well as logistics for medications and emergency transportation. We technically could transition, but doing so would be massively expensive (whether we went with nuclear or renewables), and some industries would simply not be cost effective or would be eliminated entirely. The consequence of that cost is the stress of financi…
You completely ignored what the person above you wrote.
Not really, I only responded to the line
> There is almost zero relationship between the benefits from fossil fuel use and the deaths from air pollution due to fossil fuels.
You don't actually get one without the other, and understanding the cost of the alternatives is how it is "put into perspective".
The bit about NYC was largely irrelevant, imho, to the rest of the discussion, given that the issue is far larger than one city's bad policies and lack of jurisdiction over cruise ships. Also, NYC isnt going to be going without construction vehicles anytime soon.
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Haber-Bosch unleashed synthetic nitrogen used essentially in all of agriculture (worldwide). Certainly made it possible to feed the hug surge of people.
>> Certainly made it possible to feed the hug surge of people. Or... Haber-Bosch made it possible to have that huge surge in people?
The world was already facing a fertilizer shortage which would have resulted in famine. That was the impetus for developing Haber-Bosh. The fact that petroleum is plentiful and cheap resulted (eventually, and in conjunction with other factors) cheap, plentiful, reliable food production no one at the time dreamed of.
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical. And the battle for public opinion is lost. I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trill…
In Australia new renewables plus storage are already cheaper than new coal or nuclear. Ref: "New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear" https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi...
"New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear"
I've seen stories like that for at least a decade as well. If true, then how is climate change not a solved problem? Build lots of solar and wind, decommission all coal and natural gas (and apparently nuclear), profit! Yet according to the most prominent environmentalists, we need massive new spending and regulations, and we'll have to significantly change our lifestyles and give up on the idea of economic growth.
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#59They don’t
Re: Every Day 10k People Die Due to Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So they estimate air pollution from fossil fuels lowers the average life expectancy by 1 year worldwide. Pretty significant. At the same time the opposite point can be made: fossil fuels have disproportionately increased life expectancy worldwide from pre-industrial levels, and made us able to sustain way more human beings on Earth. Talking only about the negative aspects is only half of the discussion.
I think most people can agree that up until this point, burning fossil fuels have been a net positive. But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some point it becomes worth it to pay the cost of renewables rather than continue to have a ~1 year reduced life expectancy. So I think the most important comparison is renewables vs fossil fuels.
> But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some point it becomes worth it to pay the cost of renewables rather than continue to have a ~1 year reduced life expectancy
Why is nobody talking about nuclear though? The energy density of nuclear blows everything else out of the water, and so far it's been CO2 free for the most part and safer or at the same level of safety as renewables (btw there is no such thing as 'renewable' energy, it's an abuse of language).