81–90 of 191 posts
Cool cool will the youth also return the money in their oil pension funds?
Step one of securing a “pension” is making sure that the world is livable half a century from now. On that account their priorities are correct.
At least this is the Greenpeace standard for businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I understand it, the "uncertainty" about global warming as of 2024 is the same kind of uncertainty as whether an alcoholic with liver cancer can live three or six more months if he continues ignoring his doctor's advice. I'm open to discussions about different approaches and their relative merits, but we're beyond the point where "we don't know how bad it will get" is a valid argument for anything.
If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation? For example, if the world was ending next year it might make sense to turn off all fossil fuels and eradicate most of the human population. But if it is only a few degrees per century we can consider… better options.
Let me rephrase: realistically speaking, the things humanity will manage to do in the next 10 years will be such a lukewarm attempt that the chance we will "accidentally" overshoot and create more misery is close to zero.
Cool cool will the youth also return the money in their oil pension funds?
Retirement age in Norway is 70... And there are some rumors about going to 72. Also there is talks of increasing taxes on the pensionsts... So what is the point of having a pensions fund if you are never going to retire...
Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).
I have no idea what Greenpeace's position on carbon capture is, but it's definitely isn't anti-growth to oppose carbon capture. And when I say "carbon capture" I of course mean "pinning our hopes on carbon capture". If actual, working, viable carbon capture existed then nobody would be against doing it, but that's a pipe dream. It's always going to be more economic to not burn stuff than to burn it and then unburn it…
Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).
Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science. Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work with a few climate scientists so my opinions aren’t my own. I referenced 2 researchers above, what is wrong with their opinions? [4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful” I don’t need to prove it can be done: we alr…
> Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science. https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-betwee... ("Explainer: What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?") https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... ("A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter")…
That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying that a degree of difference is very important, but not the basis for why 2C is used.
If you are arguing that fossil fuels must be shut down immediately, you must have an understanding of why 2C is used, and the difference in harm between 2C and whatever we end up with if we keep emitting. If you are not aware of this science in these cases then you are basing your beliefs on politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a massive amount of renewable energy we won’t be able use CCS at scale.
Why not? If we burn gas using CCS and develop a lot of nuclear, we wouldn’t even need renewable energy. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it’s not essential (and may actually be a distraction in e.g. Germany where it has displaced nuclear development and resulted in coal plants being reopened).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand “following the science” arguments are stupid right?
It isn't if you aren't a scientist in that field. As you're not qualified to do otherwise. As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that. Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.
A scientist is someone who found someone to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ignoring ideas unless they came from a brand is the opposite of science. Then you drop your brand (physicist) and expect others to judge your opinion as more important. It didn't work. As a senior physicist in quantum sensing I'm invalidating your brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step one of securing a “pension” is making sure that the world is livable half a century from now. On that account their priorities are correct.
Their pension needs to be liquidated to pay for reparations and the externalities that oil production caused. At least this is the Greenpeace standard for businesses.
Are there now grounds to start shutting down existing oil fields? Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.
Norway issue their own currency, so 100% of their budget comes from money they spend into existence. Oil has an impact on their ability to import, and on their ability to meet their own energy requirements.