zlacker

[parent] [thread] 27 comments
1. johnea+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-27 21:43:01
> Weird. I used to worry about climate change and now I don’t.

That's funny! I was going to start my post with the exact same sentence!

But for a totally different reason: I'm now convinced that there is no stopping the massive destruction of the natural environemnt. A much MUCH bigger problem than that of the climate alone.

I'm not a "doomer", I'm a "realist". It's clear at this point that the world's ownership class is NOT going to allow any significant mitigation of petroleum use.

The situation will continue unabated until all of the worst predictions, and many more not foreseen, come to bear.

So, I've learned to take this in stride, like with gun ownership: most gun deaths in the US are suicide. As more and more gun owners shoot themselves, this is the only mitigation to this crisis.

This will be the same for industrial distruction of our environment, including the climate. The only way it's going to mitigate is when the natural consequences come to bear and destroy a good part of the world population.

Of course, there's always "citrus greening disease" to worry about 8-)

The excuses people are willing to tell themselves will prevent any meaningful responce to the crisis... Thus, the natural consequences will occur...

replies(10): >>tempes+MP >>global+aQ >>jes519+3S >>Joeri+WV >>Charli+iZ >>maigre+vZ >>Random+U11 >>automa+3b1 >>throw_+qx1 >>collyw+Ec4
2. tempes+MP[view] [source] 2024-01-28 07:40:49
>>johnea+(OP)
I agree with a fair bit of this, except that I'm not convinced the consequences to humans will be as dire as the loss of a good part of the global population. If we're counting animal species though, then maybe.
replies(1): >>9dev+9U
3. global+aQ[view] [source] 2024-01-28 07:44:52
>>johnea+(OP)
I agree with this sentiment. Theres no stopping it now, its just going to have to run its course and we'll see if theres much of a world worth living in at the end. I do laugh at billionaire bunkers tho, like how long are they going to survive when money means nothing and the plebs that are still alive are outside blocking the exits and airways with dirt and rocks.

edit: its funny to see the only people making sense getting downvoted because reasons.

replies(1): >>oezi+j41
4. jes519+3S[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:12:22
>>johnea+(OP)
the impending collapse of cattle farming will cause the majority of agricultural land to return to the wild. This is a larger amount of land than all other human activities combined
replies(1): >>9dev+BT
◧◩
5. 9dev+BT[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 08:33:00
>>jes519+3S
It would make me jump from pure joy, but what gives you the idea there was a pending collapse of cattle farming?
replies(3): >>phtriv+pU >>dublin+Z02 >>jes519+U22
◧◩
6. 9dev+9U[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 08:38:34
>>tempes+MP
Just you wait, the effects are subtle and interlinked. If the bees eventually go extinct (which is happening right now), most plant species on earth will cease to exist. This includes fruit trees, but also a boundless number of plants animals need as food sources; animals that have other responsibilities in their ecosystems, like fertilizing the soil, transporting nutrients, and devouring vermin. Earth is inhabitable without a functioning ecosystem, and humans are about to learn that. We’re taking it apart piece by piece, until the cascade cannot be stopped anymore. It cannot be overstated how dangerous the current situation is.
replies(1): >>thelas+CV
◧◩◪
7. phtriv+pU[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 08:41:12
>>9dev+BT
Data shows a very tiny downard trend in the last decade [1] - I'm not exactly sure how you can project that into a "collapse", but, hey, "predictions are hard, especially about the future", I guess ?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...

replies(1): >>jes519+332
◧◩◪
8. thelas+CV[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 08:54:29
>>9dev+9U
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

replies(2): >>quickt+yb1 >>CatWCh+5G2
9. Joeri+WV[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:57:40
>>johnea+(OP)
It's clear at this point that the world's ownership class is NOT going to allow any significant mitigation of petroleum use.

The problem is not use, the problem is extraction. If it comes out of the ground, it gets used, and mostly ends up in the atmosphere. The volume of extracted fossil fuels is carefully managed so that prices remain low enough to prevent green alternatives from winning in the market, and high enough to maximize long term revenue. If extraction would decline, fossil fuel prices would rise, and the market would automatically rebalance into a green transition.

Really the only thing politicians need to do is put in place a global and declining cap on fossil fuel extraction. Wells need to be capped even when they’re not empty. There should be zero new drilling. You can tell the honest intentions of a politician on climate change by their policies on fossil fuel extraction.

And this means ultimately it is a political problem, not an individual problem, and can be fixed through the voting booth. But that requires people to consider this the most important problem, and they don’t. So ultimately, the reason things don’t change is not some cabal, but just plain people not prioritizing it in the voting booth.

replies(3): >>global+CZ >>oezi+441 >>badpun+rd1
10. Charli+iZ[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:30:18
>>johnea+(OP)
> So, I've learned to take this in stride, like with gun ownership: most gun deaths in the US are suicide. As more and more gun owners shoot themselves, this is the only mitigation to this crisis.

I’m sure you’re being facetious, but don’t the suicidal people buy guns? It’s not that gun owners are suicidal

11. maigre+vZ[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:32:09
>>johnea+(OP)
Some capitalists want you to believe that there is no solution. There will be lots of money to be made from this change by new entrepreneurs. We can also all do our part by reducing our own fossil fuel use, investing wisely, declining working for companies who consume or produce lots of fossil fuels, and make renewable energies get forward. Unfortunately the fossil fuel lobby (which comprises big & rich states) has put lots of energy convincing a lot of citizens otherwise. But this is not lost. Solar is progressing very fast and we have lots of potential in simple solutions like better house insulation and middle size batteries (especially the ones we'll soon be able to get cheap from used TVs).
◧◩
12. global+CZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 09:34:08
>>Joeri+WV
some sanity for a change. you wont get very far with that but its refreshing to see.
replies(1): >>quickt+ib1
13. Random+U11[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:59:34
>>johnea+(OP)
The "world's ownership class" has on average already set its sights on the wealth to be had in the energy transition. If you believe they are in charge, things will work out fine.
◧◩
14. oezi+441[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 10:21:41
>>Joeri+WV
I have wondered for some time if short term in-balance in fossil fuel supply capacity (oil tankers and pipelines) could help renewables along significantly. Let's say an environmental organization would buy 10 oil tankers and would interrupt the ability of fossil fuel producers to sell as much as they extract, wouldn't this increase fossil fuel prices temporarily and boost renewables and their technological trajectories? At some point renewables will be cheaper than developing new oil sources.
◧◩
15. oezi+j41[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 10:24:13
>>global+aQ
Fatalism isn't helping it. There are things which can be done and which are being done.

Do your part of avoiding disaster.

16. automa+3b1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 11:35:15
>>johnea+(OP)
>the world's ownership class is NOT going to allow any significant mitigation of petroleum use.

"We" - the Western voting public broadly, but also much of East Asia too - are the owning class. If you actually removed everything in our lives that depend on petroleum products, it would be a riot before the end of the month. I don't think people quite realize how much of our lives are propped up by the downstream products of oil. It's not just moving people in cars and most of electricity generation and wrapping our food in plastics; it's most of our food production (from fertilizer to mechanization), most of our biochem stuff (so much starts as natural gas), most of our infrastructure.

Without oil, the West is shivering in the cold, the shelves are empty, there's nothing to do, nowhere to go (or really, way to get there anyway) and practically no healthcare.

You square that circle, you let the rest of us know. But we won't (and should not) accept any future like that.

replies(1): >>goatlo+zc1
◧◩◪
17. quickt+ib1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 11:36:43
>>global+CZ
what if a barrel of oil becomes the new engagement gift?
◧◩◪◨
18. quickt+yb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 11:38:50
>>thelas+CV
Let’s write the final score on the earth in giant digits so it can be immortalized.
◧◩
19. goatlo+zc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 11:48:04
>>automa+3b1
Some of the doomers are accelerationists and just want to get the worst over with now. I think that's foolish and untenable, but it makes more sense of their arguments.
◧◩
20. badpun+rd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 11:55:49
>>Joeri+WV
There's a theory that our economies are so fundamentally dependant on fossil fuels that, if you limit their extraction, you don't get fossil fuels price increases, but rather proportional GDP contraction (as less f.f. means less economic activity overall), and f.f. prices stay roughly the same. The evidence to back this up is the fact that, historically, the correlation between global f.f. extraction and global GDP is pretty much perfect. In other words, economic activity is pretty much about energy expenditure, and energy means pretty much fossil fuels.
21. throw_+qx1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 14:24:15
>>johnea+(OP)
> the world's ownership class is NOT going to allow any significant mitigation of petroleum use

Do you include everyone who owns a car in this "ownership class"? I guess I share your disposition to some degree, resignation mixed with a feeling that things are going to be bad but not as bad as some have claimed, and that eventually the situation will improve, but this practice of blanket blaming "the rich" for the problem is a/the major reason we got here in the first place.

I worked in the energy sector for over a decade. It was a very conservative industry, yet everyone who worked there had their home insulation well above code and installed the most efficient appliances they could find, many had solar panels on their roofs (long before these were as available as they are today) and were first in line for plug-in electric hybrids when they first became available. Our parking lot was kind of a dangerous place to walk because there were so many electric cars you couldn't hear them coming, our director had a hydrogen powered car.

We'd get protestors all the time showing up in front of our building. Looking down from the office windows I could see them arrive and depart. They always drove there in ICE vehicles. We sold fossil fuel, but kept our operations as efficient as possible, going to great lengths to squeeze out every joule of energy we could manage and were constantly re-evaluating our processes looking for improvements, meeting with vendors to find new technology, and spent probably more time and money than was prudent experimenting with low-carbon alternatives to majors components of the company's infrastructure.

The average person in the US who is "concerned about climate change" does none of these things, is doing absolutely nothing to change the situation, but sits on their phone complaining on Reddit while consuming as much energy as is convenient for them. The amount of energy Americans use for trivial everyday tasks is staggering. The standard suburban model of living that makes up 99% of US cities and towns is a climate disaster. Although all these things are provided by large companies, this is not the result of a conspiracy, this is what people want, what people demand. When energy prices go up a few precent, people scream bloody murder and call their elected officials demanding something be done about it. When fuel efficiency standards are proposed people complain. Given a choice between a larger home and a smaller but more efficient one, people consistently choose large houses with insulation that meets only the minimum standards. At most any choice towards efficiency is motivated entirely by either financial considerations or social signaling. (note the enormous popularity of the Toyota Prius, which is distinctly a hybrid, over better cars which looked nearly identical to their ICE counterparts)

Voters and consumers over and over again have decided to keep the system they have in place decade after decade, while blaming the people who supply them what they demand for the situation.

◧◩◪
22. dublin+Z02[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 17:37:42
>>9dev+BT
The demographics don’t look good for the beef industry.

https://www.wired.com/story/beef-consumption-boomers/

◧◩◪
23. jes519+U22[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 17:49:54
>>9dev+BT
precision fermentation and lab-grown meat both exhibit cost curves analogous to Moore’s Law. within the next ten years, they’ll outcompete animal products in many situations. the first domino to fall will be milk-extracts used in processed food products, see startups like “Remilk”
replies(1): >>9dev+wu2
◧◩◪◨
24. jes519+332[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 17:50:34
>>phtriv+pU
check out https://www.rethinkx.com/food-and-agriculture
◧◩◪◨
25. 9dev+wu2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 20:56:46
>>jes519+U22
Last time I read up on this topic, there were numerous issues that made mass production of vat meat just plain unable to compete with animal meat. Has that really changed?
replies(1): >>jes519+a13
◧◩◪◨
26. CatWCh+5G2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 22:25:56
>>thelas+CV
I would be in favor of replacing the US flag with this, since flags are everywhere in the states and you'd have to see this every day, likely multiple times.
◧◩◪◨⬒
27. jes519+a13[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-29 01:19:04
>>9dev+wu2
it’s really about price and the technological learning curve. Currently it’s expensive, but that won’t be true forever
28. collyw+Ec4[view] [source] 2024-01-29 13:59:26
>>johnea+(OP)
Look up the Cambrian period.It was a lot warmer and life flourished. The idea that it getting warmer is somehow a catastrophe seems quite absurd.
[go to top]