Climate change and human responsibility

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How crazy is it that we vilify those who refine and distribute fossil fuels instead of those who consume it. As though we only consume it because they produce it. It’s psychological displacement on a massive scale.

Yeah, its like vilifying tobacco companies for people getting sick off their product. They smoked it it's their problem....

The companies only spent billions in advertising, billions to make their product appealing to a wider customer base, billions to lobby governments to keep science down and their profits up.

So now it's those poor fossil fuel companies are the victims in all of this.

Talk about psychological displacement.

We aren't hooked to fossil fuels because it is the only energy. We are hooked to fossil fuels because the fossil fuel companies spent a whole #### ton of money to make it the dominate energy source of our economy. In the end, we do only consume it because they produce it, because they were very active in ensuring nothing took its place.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Yeah, its like vilifying tobacco companies for people getting sick off their product. They smoked it it's their problem....

The companies only spent billions in advertising, billions to make their product appealing to a wider customer base, billions to lobby governments to keep science down and their profits up.

So now it's those poor fossil fuel companies are the victims in all of this.

Talk about psychological displacement.

We aren't hooked to fossil fuels because it is the only energy. We are hooked to fossil fuels because the fossil fuel companies spent a whole #### ton of money to make it the dominate energy source of our economy. In the end, we do only consume it because they produce it, because they were very active in ensuring nothing took its place.

You couldn't be more wrong. We are "hooked" on it because it is the cheapest, easiest, most energy dense form of energy we can get our hands on. The idea that we have replacements just waiting around not being used because the oil companies have brainwashed us is ridiculous. If what you say is true, you personally should have no problem giving up all forms of petroleum in your life. Why aren't you doing that?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You couldn't be more wrong. We are "hooked" on it because it is the cheapest, easiest, most energy dense form of energy we can get our hands on. The idea that we have replacements just waiting around not being used because the oil companies have brainwashed us is ridiculous. If what you say is true, you personally should have no problem giving up all forms of petroleum in your life. Why aren't you doing that?

This is something I would (and have) post basically word for word.

[J epworth]

Genuine question, do oil and gas companies spend money to oppose nuclear power development in Canada? I’m completely not involved in the energy sector so have no real insight why Canada doesn’t have more nuclear power with the amount of resources we have to produce nuclear energy.

[Monahammer]

No question that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest and most energy dense forms available. They were also some of the easiest to access technologically, and thus developed first.

I think there does need to be some thought in why those forms are currently the cheapest to access though. It's not black and white as either of you are presenting, but instead muddied by a history of actions- some by actors not even directly in favor of petroleum products necessarily. E.G. Ford and GM crushing electric tram/ streetcar networks with funding to ensure more car sales.

small point of interest: Electric vehicles were actually more common than gasoline at the turn of the 20th century, but a lack of electricity infrastructure hampered continued development. Perhaps earlier investiture in broad electric infrastructure would have changed that?

Anywas, Belsarius misses that a huge part of the problem with energy transition is that fossil fuels are just so damn cheap, convenient, and easy to get energy from. But there is a larger point to be made looking back on just how dominant they have become.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

No question that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest and most energy dense forms available. They were also some of the easiest to access technologically, and thus developed first.

I think there does need to be some thought in why those forms are currently the cheapest to access though. It's not black and white as either of you are presenting, but instead muddied by a history of actions- some by actors not even directly in favor of petroleum products necessarily. E.G. Ford and GM crushing electric tram/ streetcar networks with funding to ensure more car sales.

small point of interest: Electric vehicles were actually more common than gasoline at the turn of the 20th century, but a lack of electricity infrastructure hampered continued development. Perhaps earlier investiture in broad electric infrastructure would have changed that?

Anywas, Belsarius misses that a huge part of the problem with energy transition is that fossil fuels are just so damn cheap, convenient, and easy to get energy from. But there is a larger point to be made looking back on just how dominant they have become.

I highly doubt that. Even with our most advanced material science and microprocessors to manage them, they are just now becoming a reasonable option. Think of the tech in chargers, batteries(like porous membranes), even the motors require high precision controllers to use efficiently. Without the ability to manufacture as we can today, it just wouldn't possible. It's one of those things that uses so many different aspects of science that requires them to all come together.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You couldn't be more wrong. We are "hooked" on it because it is the cheapest, easiest, most energy dense form of energy we can get our hands on. The idea that we have replacements just waiting around not being used because the oil companies have brainwashed us is ridiculous. If what you say is true, you personally should have no problem giving up all forms of petroleum in your life. Why aren't you doing that?

This is fair in some sense. But things like plastics, people would be ok with reducing their use but its very difficult find alternatives when it comes to buying random product X packaged in plastic.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I highly doubt that. Even with our most advanced material science and microprocessors to manage them, they are just now becoming a reasonable option. Think of the tech in chargers, batteries(like porous membranes), even the motors require high precision controllers to use efficiently. Without the ability to manufacture as we can today, it just wouldn't possible. It's one of those things that uses so many different aspects of science that requires them to all come together.

?

https://www.britannica.com/technolog...ic-automobiles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ectric_vehicle

I mean, sure... you can highly doubt it. But it's a fact.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

?

https://www.britannica.com/technolog...ic-automobiles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ectric_vehicle

I mean, sure... you can highly doubt it. But it's a fact.

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm saying that there is no chance they could have developed into a worth competitor for the gas automobile until very recently. They require to many technologies that didn't exist, and couldn't exist back then.


From your link...

"Further, the electric had never really been suited to other than limited urban use because of its low speed (15–20 miles, or 24–32 km, per hour), short range (30–40 miles, or about 50–65 km), and lengthy time required for recharging."

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm saying that there is no chance they could have developed into a worth competitor for the gas automobile until very recently. They require to many technologies that didn't exist, and couldn't exist back then.


From your link...

"Further, the electric had never really been suited to other than limited urban use because of its low speed (15–20 miles, or 24–32 km, per hour), short range (30–40 miles, or about 50–65 km), and lengthy time required for recharging."

Yeah we're apparently arguing over nothing, as I initially said that they would have needed to develop electric infrastructure to make them competitive long term.

But you've jilted me a bit so I will dig more. How much do you want to bet that laws determining what types of vehicles are legally allowed on highways were lobbied to creation by petroleum companies? Because that would be an interesting one to delve into.

I digress, the original point is valid. Yeah, fossil fuels are cheap and easy. But it's way more complicated than that- the reason they are continuously so cheap is artificial, and the reason that they are so "easy" compared to other methods is probably maintained artificially as well.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm saying that there is no chance they could have developed into a worth competitor for the gas automobile until very recently. They require to many technologies that didn't exist, and couldn't exist back then.


From your link...

"Further, the electric had never really been suited to other than limited urban use because of its low speed (15–20 miles, or 24–32 km, per hour), short range (30–40 miles, or about 50–65 km), and lengthy time required for recharging."

TBF - that is probably like 95% of drives for 95% of drivers (the range part). Not sure how the speed compares to other engines at that time.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

TBF - that is probably like 95% of drives for 95% of drivers (the range part). Not sure how the speed compares to other engines at that time.

Speed was same or better until the 20s or so. In fact, electric vehicles were the luxury of the time.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah we're apparently arguing over nothing, as I initially said that they would have needed to develop electric infrastructure to make them competitive long term.

But you've jilted me a bit so I will dig more. How much do you want to bet that laws determining what types of vehicles are legally allowed on highways were lobbied to creation by petroleum companies? Because that would be an interesting one to delve into.

I digress, the original point is valid. Yeah, fossil fuels are cheap and easy. But it's way more complicated than that- the reason they are continuously so cheap is artificial, and the reason that they are so "easy" compared to other methods is probably maintained artificially as well.

I think vehicle manufacturers had a lot more to do with how roads and cities developed than oil companies. And vehicle manufacturers wouldn't care about the fuel used, so I don't think oil is all that relevant to that part of the discussion.

The cheapness, perhaps is somewhat artificial. It depends how many externalities you want to factor in. But it is incredibly cheap to take oil out of the ground in a place like Saudi Arabia. But as far as energy density combine with convenience, not much else comes close. There is no way to store power as efficiently as it is in hydrocarbons. The biggest impediment to wind and solar is the lack of storage. Adding batteries is extremely expensive, and I don't buy the argument petroleum would be too, if you just stopped subsidizing it. The math just doesn't work.

The reason this transition is slow is because it is incredibly hard, and we are still hunting for solutions. If it was easy to replace oil, we would have done it long ago.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

TBF - that is probably like 95% of drives for 95% of drivers (the range part). Not sure how the speed compares to other engines at that time.

I think within 5 years time, if you are a daily commuter who can afford parking downtown, and not using something small and electric like a Renault Zoe, or taking transit, you should feel really bad about your choices. Of course, we need manufacturers to actually build more of these types of vehicles first.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Pasture land is most often land that is unsuitable for grain crops. The cattle just graze on the native grasses growing on that light and/or hilly land - is that a bad thing?

It may in fact be a good thing as proper grazing techniques can keep the soil healthy and readily able to absorb carbon.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn’t help you with meat production though where increased pastureland would be required.

Not really true, as increases in meat production the past 30 years have not necessarily been met with increased amounts of pasture needed. This of course is due to factory farming (feedlots, barns, etc) meat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Sadly no pro farmer lobby on this board to give us the reasons why it won't it work.

I think the bigger play is actually plant based 'meats' and from that the North American farmer will benefit greatly as it should drive growth of crops that up till now we're providing great returns.

Peas an example are doing great right now due to the growth of the pea processing market in Canada and it is all needed for plant based foods (impossible burger, etc).

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You couldn't be more wrong. We are "hooked" on it because it is the cheapest, easiest, most energy dense form of energy we can get our hands on. The idea that we have replacements just waiting around not being used because the oil companies have brainwashed us is ridiculous. If what you say is true, you personally should have no problem giving up all forms of petroleum in your life. Why aren't you doing that?

I am not doing that because that's not how our society is built. It might be the cheapest, easiest and most energy dense, but it is also destroying our only planet. Such a stupid argument of trying to play "Gotcha!".

You don't have to look any further than any of the leaks from the 80s that companies like Exxon knew exactly the damage it was causing and burying it. Any talk of moving to something else has always been met with severe resistance and mega lobbying from those companies to keep other options down. It is hard to find another energy source, when the people behind our current source are doing their best to ensure it is the top.

Look at Frank Shuman's solar farm in Egypt at the turn of the century. You don't think solar power technology would not be infinitely better today had we not continued his type of research instead of shelving it for oil?

I'm not saying that we didn't start using oil because of the oil barons, you are right on the accessibility of it to fuel our world. But once we started to know the danger, instead of trying to find solutions, billions were spent to keep oil on top and prevent other sources from gaining traction. If we had spent as much R&D on figuring out green energy in the 80s that we did figuring out Sag-D we would be much farther ahead than we are.

Blame the people who have no options but to use the oil, instead of the people who refused to develop an alternative because it was "profitable"

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I am not doing that because that's not how our society is built. It might be the cheapest, easiest and most energy dense, but it is also destroying our only planet. Such a stupid argument of trying to play "Gotcha!".

You don't have to look any further than any of the leaks from the 80s that companies like Exxon knew exactly the damage it was causing and burying it. Any talk of moving to something else has always been met with severe resistance and mega lobbying from those companies to keep other options down. It is hard to find another energy source, when the people behind our current source are doing their best to ensure it is the top.

Look at Frank Shuman's solar farm in Egypt at the turn of the century. You don't think solar power technology would not be infinitely better today had we not continued his type of research instead of shelving it for oil?

I'm not saying that we didn't start using oil because of the oil barons, you are right on the accessibility of it to fuel our world. But once we started to know the danger, instead of trying to find solutions, billions were spent to keep oil on top and prevent other sources from gaining traction. If we had spent as much R&D on figuring out green energy in the 80s that we did figuring out Sag-D we would be much farther ahead than we are.

Blame the people who have no options but to use the oil, instead of the people who refused to develop an alternative because it was "profitable"

Now you are just complaining about capitalism. Why would Exxon spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop an entirely new energy source, when they have a perfectly profitable one? Why is it their responsibility to point out all the flaws of their business model? If anything, it's a massive failure of governments. I never understood why oil companies take the blame for everything, when they are just functioning within the bounds of the system that exists for them.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Now you are just complaining about capitalism. Why would Exxon spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop an entirely new energy source, when they have a perfectly profitable one? Why is it their responsibility to point out all the flaws of their business model? If anything, it's a massive failure of governments. I never understood why oil companies take the blame for everything, when they are just functioning within the bounds of the system that exists for them.

A perfectly profitable one that is killing the planet. I agree that government shoulder even more to blame than the corporations, however covering up information about the dangers of a product to make profit isn't just capitalism. We have many laws against that and how we expect corporations to act within a certain ethical boundary - see the Ford Pinto.

Governments and people have turned a blind eye to the oil companies wrongdoing because we want oil, we want convenience and we arn't prepared for the hardship. But governments are also held to the whim of the lobbyists. The companies are using their power and influence to slow down government action and keep profits going. They are pushing for laws that impede green energy while simultaneously pushing for increased oil production at a time where we KNOW what the catastrophic results are.

They gamed the system, they abused the system and they gaslit society. They aren't acting "within the system", they are controlling the system for their own ends.

They may not shoulder 100% of the blame, but the original claim that the user should be held to blame instead of the corporations is Ludacris.