zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. Joeri+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:57:40
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+G3 >>oezi+88 >>badpun+vh
2. global+G3[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:34:08
>>Joeri+(OP)
some sanity for a change. you wont get very far with that but its refreshing to see.
replies(1): >>quickt+mf
3. oezi+88[view] [source] 2024-01-28 10:21:41
>>Joeri+(OP)
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.
◧◩
4. quickt+mf[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-28 11:36:43
>>global+G3
what if a barrel of oil becomes the new engagement gift?
5. badpun+vh[view] [source] 2024-01-28 11:55:49
>>Joeri+(OP)
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.
[go to top]