deleted by creator
Well, then it’s a good thing MAGA cancelled Climate Change, so we don’t have to worry about it.
Blowing up oil production could be argued as carbon negative.
No. Complete opposite. Not just full emissions from the buring oil, but replacement oil “needs” to be dug up.
I disagree. That oil you are seeing burning is just a few days of normal production. So it would have gotten burnt regardless. If you take the broader view, disrupting global oil production will give renewable energies a much needed push. If your petrol gets too expensive, the electric car maybe looks better now. Using solar and wind looks better when fossil fuel prices are more expensive. And heating your home with a heat pump is currently much, much cheaper than using gas or oil. So this will give a push, if done correctly.
Some countries might even wake up and realize that it’s better to produce their own energy from the sun shining on their own soil than being kind of a victim of whatever happens somewhere else in the world.
The economics for new energy as a slow transition were already there at $50/barrel. Geopolitical extortion means that fuel dependence means energy insecurity from enemies foreign and domestic (the monopolists and oil companies that corrupt our government). At one point this week, Trump said America (just its oil companies) will make a lot of money from destruction of all Gulf contries.
The geopolitical extortion case for having secure/fuelless energy existed yesterday, and will exist as long as US can be bribed to make oil more expensive. It should not be “oh wow, who could of thought some oil facilities could have ever gotten blown up, I better look at EV websites today”
On an individual basis, your demand for the best affordable EVs and energy indepdendent of the nationality of the company/workers who might provide it for you, should be not on comparing cost vs $2/gasoline a month ago, but on the fear of $4 or $6 gasoline, your government will enable, and on the fear of a $3/gallon carbon tax (paid as dividend to citizens/residents) as the only solution to global warming and energy transition.
It’s that $300/ton carbon tax that will speed transition. Overall, people are too dumb to realize their extortion and oppression is forever, and rooting for oil facilities destruction, as part of any solution, doesn’t change that it was going to happen anyway. When facility is rebuilt it is emissions, and lost oil obtained elsewhere to fill the gas tank it was already going to be used in, is more emissions.
Oil spikes do be making a MF invest in alternative energy. Just hope you don’t get clean coal
Wells burn for a long time
yeah but what about out cabron budget?
I think the red hot chili peppers blew through that in 2002
There’s always room in the budget for one more cabrón
Te Debo una cabrón
Just for fun, look up how much the US army pollutes.
Don’t worry, nobody will be able to afford to drive, so that will offset it.
We don’t have the room for AI either and that’s not stopping anyone.
I have a feeling that the carbon budget is going to be the least of our concerns soon.
Yeah, these days I’m more worried about the potential of future radioactive fallout.
I’m worried that I live a bit too far from the closest likely nuke target and I might survive the first phase of the war
That’s an interesting perspective. Thinking like that, I’m probably going in the first wave.
That would be for the best. You really don’t want to survive a nuclear war: what comes after is so much worse
The UK movie Threads from 1984 is probably the most accurate fictional representation of what nuclear war would look like. You can find it on Youtube
Hear me out. Depending on how massive the war is it could actually help on the long term.
At the end of the day less people equals less pollution.
Sounds like an ecofash take
While we are at it: Don’t treat the personal in critical and low life expectancy (e.g. heavily mutilated but could live through until natural death) to save on pension funds and later medical infrastructure.
More for the young in need (a bit of /s and /j)
Yes but just very few people make up the majority of pollution.
…or AI.
What room is there for anything with a negative budget?
Well, you see, it works like money. You go over budget and plan to pay later. Then, when you go beyond what you expected to borrow, you change the debt ceiling and borrow more. And then when you are beyond your ability to pay off the debt, you change the rules such that you can take a few extra decades. Keep doing this until you have kicked the can down the road beyond your anticipated lifespan. And then your grandchildren can just get fucked for all you care.
No problem! Let’s craft a new Accord! They’re fun!
100% agree, but the worst side of the human condition is in control and they want to burn baby burn it all down.
We were never gonna get the carbon thing under control.
Sure we will!
Human-driven climate change will accelerate the Holocene mass extinction, ending Homo Sapiens - and with us will go all carbon-producing industry.
The carbon thing finds its equilibrium after some tens of thousands of years, and the climate stabilizes some hundreds of thousands or millions of years after that. And then, provided the biosphere wasn’t damaged beyond its ability to compensate or regulate for the increased solar luminosity that has occurred since the last “Hot-House Earth” climate, it will recover and heal.
And if not, then we’ve killed everything down to the tardigrades, and probably them too, and we end up with a runaway greenhouse Venus type situation some 0.3 - 0.6 billion years early.
as A physics channel person as said, countries have largely abandoned global climate change for a while now. they are mostly going YOLO with oil now. plus there are subtle acts of undermining/sabotaging environmental activism for years, like funding “carbon footprint companies” so they dont have to reduce thier emissions, and funding “eco-activists” you hear in the news defacing public properties to incite ire against protestors.(mona lisa, gluing yourself to cars,etc)
Some science channels were called out for promoting these companies as a way of reducing your carbon footprint, luckily they stopped once they found out.
Not while we still allow psychopaths to be in control.
Not while we still allow them to be alive.
True enough. But even if we had gotten a magic benevolent dictator decades ago, the damage was already done. We’re just piling it on at this point. In some aspects, maybe a speed run into hell will work out better than a long braking. Better overall, but still a disaster.
No. The less carbon that is added to the atmosphere, the less severe the damage will be. Economic collapse will only increase the motivation to rely on cheap and dirty fuels, not to mention the incentives to cut down all the trees and exterminate all the wildlife.
Less total carbon. It’s morbid, but burning ourselves out faster ends up with a smaller number than if we persist in this. If you go with some assumption that economic collapse allows us to survive… well I guess you have a point.
That level of futility is counter productive.
it’s not comments like these that are holding us back
…but the mindset is.
Seems most things are. Just being realistic.
if we had gotten a solution years ago, we would experience a fraction of the effects.
Correct. Oligarchs are responsible for the murder of billions of humans. Absurd, disgusting, shameful… yet, wholly predictable.
We’ll combat global warming with nuclear winter! 🙃
Throw another hotdog on the uranium! It’s almost time for The President’s Daily Truthcast.
