291–300 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else
Who teaches the kid that individual consumerism comes before everything else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.
Hopefully the kids will realize the only retribution they’re going to get involves sending everybody that caused this into a wood chipper that shoots out directly into a fire. They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right - my point exactly. $123m a year is serious coin. A few puff-piece PR releases saying "we're going green! yay us!" are pennies in comparison.
Sure - but setting aside lobbying and PR releases their own capex reports show that US domestic companies were seriously cutting back on oil exploration between 2014 and 2020. And the investments they were making were overwhelmingly to (lower carbon) natural gas. To put it another way, in that period they reduced their lobbying budget by $50 million and their production investment by $400 billion . It is the lobbying…
Seriously, go watch Climate Town, the guy running the channel is a comedy genius (and also has a degree in climate science).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure - but setting aside lobbying and PR releases their own capex reports show that US domestic companies were seriously cutting back on oil exploration between 2014 and 2020. And the investments they were making were overwhelmingly to (lower carbon) natural gas. To put it another way, in that period they reduced their lobbying budget by $50 million and their production investment by $400 billion . It is the lobbying…
I've seen enough Climate Town videos (YT channel) to not trust anything that comes the from O&G direction. It may be very well that the exploration was cut back, but that could be for a number of reasons. Without knowing any details, I would blatantly assume they cut back purely out of it being the most profitable thing to do. Seriously, go watch Climate Town, the guy running the channel is a comedy genius (and also…
Yes, that is blatantly what they did. There was an entire speech from President Biden on it:
“You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining, - Invest in America for the American people. Bring down the price you charge at the pump to reflect what you pay for the product... My message to oil companies is this: You’re sitting on record profits. And we’re giving you more certainty so you can act now to increase oil production now.”
So again, oil and gas companies found it more profitable to produce less, and it became a national political issue to not let them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen enough Climate Town videos (YT channel) to not trust anything that comes the from O&G direction. It may be very well that the exploration was cut back, but that could be for a number of reasons. Without knowing any details, I would blatantly assume they cut back purely out of it being the most profitable thing to do. Seriously, go watch Climate Town, the guy running the channel is a comedy genius (and also…
> Without knowing any details, I would blatantly assume they cut back purely out of it being the most profitable thing to do. Yes, that is blatantly what they did. There was an entire speech from President Biden on it: “You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining, - Invest in America for the American people. Bring down the price you charge at the pump to reflect what you pay…
Rant: I'm so sick of the phrase "what the average citizen pays at the pump" and it's relatives. How about making public transport viable? Nope, everyone's got to have big cars and cheap fuel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's a fair bit easier than that mess.
It is easier than passing laws that are economic carrots to promote electrifying cars and building new green energy sources of power? No. It clearly isn't and will just become a culture war issue that doesn't even matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They…
a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other l…
Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one.
It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action.
Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.
I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other l…
>They don't have the right to do it. Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!" It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or me…
The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously. I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crash…