this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
82 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5397 readers
226 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article talks about biofuel, but not gas to liquids (i.e. Fischer–Tropsch).
Both are expensive but very much possible, it's only the fact that burning fossil fuels is so cheap that prevents them being economically possible.
The climate crisis has little to do with what is physically or technologically possible. It's all about economics — what is feasible, and what is most profitable. In Capitalism cheap, dirty, and destructive will always win the race when the alternatives are less profitable.
The majority will not accept their 1k flight costing 5 or 10k. The human population simply will not accept a forceful phase-out of GHG's without alternatives that are equal or cheaper. We're greedy, and the greed is concentrated at the top.
Exactly. This is all about people trying to come up with a technological solution to retain the same unsustainable lifestyle we already have become complacent with. It's just not possible; we can't keep consuming over what's feasible and wonder why the consequences of overconsumption keep coming up.
The thing is that free markets have a fix for CO2 emissions - my (person A's) climate and my property being affected by person B's CO2 emissions is not a consensually entered contract, I didn't agree to this. So allowing people to release CO2 emissions doesn't follow the two rules of private property + free markets.
But people who gain from CO2 emissions being allowed just have way to much power
Yes, fossil fuels are only cheaper because they aren't paying the full burden of the externalities.
i had never thought of it that way.
also the irony that farmers dont give a fuck about the environment always gets me.
Yes and no. All externalities that impact others are non-consensual, but you could extend that logic to the consumption of any finite resource and even moreso for inefficiency — the current markets inefficient consumption of that finite resource means there is less for everyone, and increases the price and opportunities for everyone, with people born later at an inherent disadvantage. You could extend that logic further to any alteration of the environment or natural world whatsoever; to all human consumption. Using any resource creates an external degradation in the availability and opportunities of everyone else regarding that resource.
The free market doesn't have a solution though — essentially zero capitalist orgs have chosen to voluntarily consume less or cease emissions. The ones that do are at a competitive disadvantage due to higher costs vs competitors — laws and regulations are required to level the playing field so the competition is fairer... A free market solution is an oxymoron. The free market created this crisis.