Comments
-
@butthole bread, I’M NUUUUUCLEEAARR
-
It's hilarious to watch people blame oil companies while using their services. Oil companies don't exist due to some evil lobbyist conspiracy, they exist because oil continues to be one of the single most valuable products on the planet, contributing to the production of jet fuel for planes, resins, plastics, asphalt, epoxies, and a whole host of other chemicals. This is on top of, of course, producing gasoline and diesel. I fully support alternative energy, electric cars, and other technologies to help reduce our carbon footprint, but in the meantime we will still need oil, and to think otherwise either shows an extreme idealism or a misunderstanding of the facts.
-
@PottedPlant, this is referencing to a number of fraudulent studies that were published or funded by oil companies that try to cast doubt on human influence on climate change. They use cherry picked experiments with falsified data in order to support that notion to reduce their loss on market share due to concerns over the environment
-
@jouze, Oh ok, thanks for putting it into context. That is truly despicable behavior. The point of my comment was not to insulate that oil companies don't have lobbyist or do bad things, just to point out that the reality of our usage is more complicated than people are aware, or make it out to be.
-
@PottedPlant, they also help keep it that way. They own almost every alternative energy patent atm, however it's still cheaper to not implement them
-
@PottedPlant, blaming people because they use the system we were born into is d1ck move. The problem is oil companies are preventing us from moving on when going renewable is completely feasible option. Oil companies new in the mid 1900’s what emissions were doing and started a campaign to fight knowledge.
-
@CellSword, the cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of doing something. Its like having cancer. Sure, chemo and doctors visits cost a lot, but the cost of waiting and doing nothing is far worse.
-
@PottedPlant, I mean they largely were responsible for stopping the production of the first electric car which was popular in the market but they projected losses on the oil side so they killed the project. Theres a whole movie called who killed the electric car.
-
@Implicit88, The people who buy the products are responsible for keeping them in business. Full stop. If there was no demand, they wouldn't exist. The real issue however is just simply that we have no alternatives to jet fuel when running planes, electric cars have many issues that still need to be resolved, including cost of materials, charging time, issues with range in cold weather. Renewable power like wind and solar continue to require backup with natural gas and other fossil fuels due to intermittency issues, which is why even after going majority renewable countries like Germany still see an increase in fossil fuels. If you are concerned about climate change, your best best is nuclear power, such as what was done in France. Simply put, people don't have higher demand for renewables than fossil fuels due to lobbyist efforts and corruption, it's due to renewable energy and electric cars continually underperforming in cost, efficiency, and capability to the current fossil fuels.
-
@Implicit88, I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage renewable energy and electric cars, the technology will continue to get better. But you won't see a revolution until the technology and cost are better than the current system.
-
@PottedPlant, I mean you are right, it's not specifically big oils fault apart from their lobbying and misinformation spreading on the issue. Tbh I feel like the problem is with the price. The world revolves around money, make oil more expensive and suddenly there will be more funding for alternative fuel technology. Europe is already using less per capita due to the price there. Yes it sucks a lot in the short term especially for lower income brackets but its better than the alternative. That price is a government level thing though, not an company level one.
-
@PottedPlant, how can it get better if no one lets it get better? The ic was created as a leader not as a follower. All the issues you state were there for the ic as well compared to a horse yet it prevailed. Nuclear power is even worse than emissions in the long term. Nuclear waste has a long shelf life. Renewable energy could be achieved if you look at alternative energy storage. Like closed circuit dams, regenerative breaking on trains going up a hill, and others.
-
@PottedPlant, even so, you cant blame people for working within society to make it better. If you were to say no more oil, you literally could not eat or drink anything not naturally occurring because guess what?! Food and water are all results from oil. Machinery made a lot of infrastructure. That argument is truly a stupid one. You literally would not be able to use anything. I am grateful for oil, however, its life is up. Its time to be responsible and stop borrowing from future generations.
-
@Implicit88, There's no oil conspiracy preventing renewables technology from advancing. Renewables continue to receive billions in subsidies every year and will continue to do so. The technology just isn't there yet. While there are some incidents of bad behavior in the past, oil companies as a whole are not keeping renewables down. And my argument was never along the lines that because renewables have issues we should stop using them or improving them, just that we should be honest about the reality of the situation. I already mentioned that we should continue to support renewable growth. Your comments regarding nuclear are patently false with regards to carbon emissions. Nuclear has less carbon emissions than renewables overall. Now if you are talking about nuclear waste, which doesn't affect climate change, then I would say you have a point, that is a concern, but that we should continue to do what we are doing with renewables and find new ways to deal with that waste.
-
@Implicit88, It's been the policy of the US government and other Western nations for years to ignore the benefits of nuclear and give them no funding, and continuing to decommission plants. If you want to fight climate change, this is the exact opposite of what should be done. Honestly had no idea what you are talking about on your last comment. I'm not blaming people for working to make things better, far from it. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical to blame oil companies for climate change when you are a consumer who buys their products.
-
@PottedPlant, nuclear waste is radioactive and is far worse for the overall environment is what i meant. Oil companies have for years made climate change a debate rather than fact. They tried to keep it hidden, not a conspiracy theory its fact. They do things like create a pipeline DAPL which has leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons already but news dont mention it. Then there ocean oil spills.
-
@PottedPlant, what i am saying is its not hypocritical to buy stuff oil companies makes as people need to or else they will die. Oil companies contribute to almost every part of society in one way or another.
-
@Implicit88, I would dispute that, given that if climate change projections are accurate, we are talking close to trillions of dollars worldwide. But I agree nuclear waste is an issue. Oil companies aren't a monolith though. There are bad actors and there are good actors, just like an industry and any corporation. With regards to DAPL, clearly leaking pipelines are bad, but people fail to realize that full cost benefit ratio of them. Hundreds of thousands of gallons is what the DAPL can produce in a day or less. The actual percentage of leaked volume vs volume of product that travels safely to it's destination out of DAPL will be something like 99.9% efficient. All while being orders of magnitude in safety vs other transportation methods like truck and rail. I will grant you ocean spills however. If we could avoid offshore drilling as a whole I think we would solve the majority of concerns that pipelines have toward their environment impact.
-
@PottedPlant, “you question society and yet you participate in it. I am very smart.”
-
@liberachi , You clearly didn't understand anything I said. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize oil companies. Feel free. What I am saying is you can't blame oil companies for climate change without acknowledging that you are a part of the problem by buying their products. People like to shift all the blame to oil companies because then they never have to take responsibility for their actions. Humans cause climate change by existing. The fact is we still need oil products as a society, and to think otherwise is indeed idealistic or ignorant.
-
Beef production produces the most air pollution.
-
@Weird Porn Stash, I agree, cows and other livestock produce more carbon dioxide than all the cars we have put together.
-
@Cauvell22, It's crazy too. It's not even just the equipment and machinery that does it, it's literally just the passive burping and farting from the cattle themselves.
-
@Weird Porn Stash, this is exactly why i have reduced my beef consumption. Beef production has a large carbon and water footprint for the nutrition it provides.
-
@Weird Porn Stash, agriculture as a whole in the US is only 9% of air pollution and 14% in the world. That’s including all livestock, machinery, fertilizers and all that.
-
Contra Points is one bad b!tch
-
Yeah dude your trying to make it sound like the problem is the oil companies and not the fact that the demand for oil is there for a reason. Electricity just cannot replace oil right now the technology just is not there.
-
@BlazingBowman, it also ignores the fact that humans solve problems with our environment, that’s probably THE defining characteristic of homo sapian, we stopped adapting to our environment and make it adapt to us. Not that we shouldn’t be good stewards of the planet, mind you, it just silly to think we won’t overcome our mistakes.
-
@BlazingBowman, the thing is though the technology is there and it can be done. The problem is a mass overhaul and implementation on the short timescale is needed and governments/companies do not want to lose money
-
@BlazingBowman, The technology is there and improving rapidly. It would be expensive to implement the tech as quickly as we need to, but it would be beneficial to the environment and economy in the long run. Alternative energy cannot replace oil 100% at the moment, but for what we can change we have to do it.
-
@K1l, you ever look into how long it takes to charge a electric car battery?
-
@Homeless Gentleman, you ever look into how long it takes to charge an electric car battery.
-
@BlazingBowman, about 4 hours currently. It doesn’t seem convenient until you realize the fueling station for it is in your garage...
-
@A Blunt Object, doesnt seem convineint if you know you dont have a garage. If youre able to afford the delux charger or if youre going on a trip thats longer than youre range so youre stoping every 2 hours and waiting 4 hours to charge up and go at a minimum. In a real situation where everyone driving electric cars and waiting 4 hours to charge their cars that line could be huge and long very easily. Then there the power difference i dont know but im going to assume theres a horse power difference so if you wanna haul anything good luck.
-
@BlazingBowman, the technology is there, wind, solar, hydro energy is perfectly capable of providing everyone with energy, it's just not economically wise, and as of right now money is more important than people and mother earth.
-
@Homeless Gentleman, resident petroleum engineer turned risk analyst. This is a good conversation until you realize big oil is playing both sides so they come out on top. In Europe, big oil owns just about most of the solar panels now. Ultimately, oil companies will just become energy companies. The problem is the market for oil and gas is there. Shut down that market by a number of ways, ie only producing electric cars, then the industry will be forced to adapt and change. Now excuse me while I fly away on my on my magic unicorn powered by the screams of children
-
@BlazingBowman, Like I said, it isnt viable to do a complete switch over, but cars arent the only concern. Transportation is actually on the lower side of greenhouse gas emissions from the major economic sectors. Industry, electricity and heat production, and agriculture produce the largest chunk of greenhouse gases.
-
@Carry Dazzle , you ever look up how long it takes to charge even the high end electric cars? Unpracticle.
-
@K1l, from what i remember it was 1 third of the greenhouse gas emmisions. Industry and electricity production took up the other two thirds of the lions share and cow farts and other minor sources took like 1% or something.
-
@BlazingBowman, Yeah those numbers seem about right for the United States and still fits with what I said. It makes up about 1/3 of the greenhouse gas emissions and unfortunately, the current solutions arent economically viable yet for most of the population. That doesnt mean we should just completely ignore the other 2/3 of emitters that do have more economically available solutions.
-
@K1l, i feel like i remember one of the big three numbers being a 25% but its been like 6 months since ive seen those numbers. Speaking of the emiters i think if we went full solar damb winf and nyclear we could atleast negate like 1/3 and if we get electric cars more practical it could start clearing up that 1/3 but for production thats an entirely new subject. Specific for each product being produced that emits c02. Because i imagibe a process for lowering or removing co2 emmisions from like creating plastic might be different than say removing or reducing c02 emisions from making steel.
-
@BlazingBowman, the problem is when oil companies are purposely stopping innovation and trying to keep a reliance on oil. If you look at other companies in asia (china, uae, saudis) they are shifting to renewable energy because they know its the future. Heavily investing in it. Meanwhile we have incredible stupid people who just want to hang onto oil.
-
@BlazingBowman, if electric cars become more mainstream, a charger in the floor could charge your car as you drive on major highways. Cities already have this technology. The range anxiety thing is just a myth. We can easily overcome it if we wanted to.
-
@BlazingBowman, yup and an IC engine used to have a 10 mile range. Your issue is that you’re looking at current, not what the technology will become. Just look at how your cellphone has evolved in a decade. Car ranges have improved, and if you’re at a supercharger it currently takes 30 minute to charge half a “tank”. Think of where it will be in 10 years...
-
@Implicit88, charging off what?
-
@Implicit88, how is it a myth its cold hard fact right now it will only go so far even on the high end cars take hours to charge from 0. And ive looked onto a super charger the 4 hour figure is derived from having a super charger charging it. If you have a normal charger it takes like 16 hours.
-
@A Blunt Object, of course im looking at the current. Im looking at what we have now. Do you expect me to bring a car from 40 years in the future to drive? Based on google it takes 4 hours with the super charger on the high end super expensive cars.
-
@BlazingBowman, electricity in the ground. Its similar to wireless phone charging technology.
-
@BlazingBowman, boohoo 😭😭
-
@Jdrawer, boohoo what?
-
@Implicit88, asphalt isnt the best conductor of electricity. Ima have to put on my skeptical hat.
-
@BlazingBowman, That you have to wait a while to charge your car.
-
@BlazingBowman, that’s like saying the first cell phone camera is what I’m going to base the technology on forever. You can’t make any change without a first step. BTW 30 minutes at a Tesla super charger for 50% charge is current, check it out...
-
@Jdrawer, yeah see this is why people dont like environmentalists. Your elitist freaking attitude combined with your smugness and complete lack of touch with people in real life. Why the hell would i pay 60k to buy a toy car that cant haul sh!t cant drive more than a couple hundred miles without having to take a 4 hour pit stop best case scenario. Charging stations few and far between so if i miss one ill need a call a tow truck, and Probably handles like sh!t in poor weather conditions. You are so out of touch its not even funny.
-
@BlazingBowman, i mean if you cant put two and two together im not sure i can help you much. Obviously a conductive material is installed into streets that can efficiently send low power to a car consistently so battery power is minimally drained. No one charges there phone on an asphalt pad....
-
@BlazingBowman, Forgive me for being the elite one just because you're upset you have to wait to do things.
-
*ahem* REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
@Homeless Gentleman, I've never seen a man articulate my position so clearly before. Would you like to be my new campaign manager?
Let's go nuclear!