this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
1524 points (98.5% liked)
People Twitter
5393 readers
333 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
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
This is such a straw-man argument. I'm highly in favor of renewables, but I'm not blind to what other people think.
Say you're someone who legitimately doesn't believe that climate change is happening, or at least that if it's happening it's not being caused by humanity. (People who believe those things are definitely out there.) In that case, what's the worst thing that can happen?
Obviously this isn't something that people who think climate change is a hoax are concerned about. They're worried that renewable sources will be more expensive and less reliable.
People who don't believe in climate change also don't think we're anywhere close to running out of oil. In fact, they think it's the same people pushing the "climate change hoax" that are pushing the idea that the planet is running low on oil. "Peak oil" has been predicted for decades, and they just keep finding more and more oil.
The US is the #1 global oil producer. Canada is 4th on the list. Brazil is 8th. Mexico is 11th. Norway is 13th. With Natural Gas it's similar, US is #1, Canada is #4, Australia is #7, Norway is #9. Aside from the obvious jokes about the US being an unstable country with a bad human rights record, this concern is overblown. If OPEC limits production the prices will go up, but that means more profit will flow to the US. Assuming this is meant for a US audience, that's obviously a good thing for their economy. If it's meant for say the UK, there's going to be more dependence on fossil fuels from Russia, but it isn't like all fossil fuels come from enemies of the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production
A lot of the people who are pro-fossil fuels are older. They've seen the air quality go up consistently over their lives. They don't think of the current world as a hellscape with dirty air, they see it as the cleanest air they've ever had. The problem is that the pollutant that most people are worried about now is invisible and... unsmellable? Unlike the soot and smog that makes pollution so obvious.
The US is the country that produces the most oil and the most natural gas, it also makes the most gasoline / petrol by far. Domestic research, education and fabrication is a US thing when it comes to oil and gasoline. By contrast, most solar panel components are produced in China. 96.8% of photovoltaic wafers are made in China. Wind Turbines are also largely made in China.
Sure, theoretically investment could mean that generation is shifted away from China and to manufacturers in the west. But, when was the last time the west ramped up manufacturing to compete with China in anything?
--
The reason that so many people are opposed to change are:
I'd like to add that a lot of these people work in the oil or coal industry or have family members who do. The work, as dangerous and comparatively ill paying as it may be, may be the only thing that puts their town on the map and keeps food on the table. Not seeing a way out for those who can't or won't be retained for another job can be pretty scary, a fear that is very much preyed a upon by conservatives.
Right on. No matter how well meaning people may be, if we misunderstand the issues then we're unlikely to craft working solutions.
The only comment I would add to yours is that local economies are interconnected with the global marketplace. If the price of oil goes up overseas, domestic producers will increase their prices too. Additionally, the cost of energy is baked into the price of imported goods. Even if a country were completely energy independent, a spike in the price of energy on the global markets would increase price of just about everything at home.
And, importantly, the potential outcomes of middle-east tensions leading to oil prices going up is something people are used to. It seems likely that something like solar panels would be less prone to disruption from overseas crises. OTOH, maybe tension in the South China sea means that it's impossible to get replacement solar panels. It's trading a set of drawbacks that people know how to deal with, for some that maybe they don't. Change is scary.
I'd love to have a home I could mount solar panels on. For me, the potential drawbacks are tiny compared to the potential benefits. But, not everyone feels the same way, and it isn't just because they can't see the obvious.
I just learned so much in such a short amount of time. Thanks for taking the time to drop some knowledge.
I'll raise one point on this. Peak Oil isn't just a question of the gross quantity of existing oil, its about the cost of extracting a new barrel relative to the demand for that barrel. It is possible we can reach a moment in history when the value-add of a burning a gallon of light sweet crude is lower than the cost to extract it. We've already functionally passed that point for coal (which is why we've basically given up mining it, despite enormous reserves continuing to exist).
The BP Horizon spill is a great example of the consequences of "Peak Oil" as a practical concern. The Horizon rig was only economically viable because of the triple-digit price on oil, going into the late '00s. It was a largely experimental construction, given the offshore depth of the extraction with costs to match, signaling a depletion of "safer" inland wells. And the liabilities it generated (both directly from the spill and indirectly from political reforms instated afterwards and insurance demanded for future rigs) dwarfed the revenue it produced.
There's still oil in the well Horizon had drilled and we could still conceivably build another rig to go back and keep mining it. But we won't, because the costs exceed the expected revenues. If we ever see $200-300 bbl gasoline, a business might have the monetary incentive to return. But if wind/solar/nuclear become a cost-efficient replacement, there will never been an economic incentive to rebuild on that patch. We will have passed the point at which oil extraction makes financial sense.
This is the only part I'd take issue with. Profits will be good for the oil companies but so many products will be affected by the price increase that this would be terrible for consumers. We're already seeing that in food prices as transportation costs (oil) are affecting them.
Which will eventually make its way into the US economy, assuming that the shareholders are mostly American, which they probably are. Of course, there's a terrible problem with wealth inequality, and a lot of people who will benefit from high oil prices are the wealthy, but even the wealthy tend to eventually spend their money, even if it's on something dumb like a penis-shaped rocket.
If it were only US prices going up, I'd agree that it was a net negative for the average American. In that case you'd just have money shifting from the average person to the oil company shareholders. But, in this case, it's different. In this case, prices worldwide would go up, and people around the world would be paying more for fuel. That means money from around the world would flow to the US because of the big American share of the oil industry. In a fair world, the ultra-rich would pay a 90% tax rate and that money would immediately flow into the government coffers then be spent on things that benefited ordinary Americans. But, even with all the various tax dodges and so-on, it's probably still a net positive for the US as things stand.
Well the problem is that the solution is unthinkable. Most people, not just fascists but also liberals, parrot certain ingrained dogma that has been programmed into them. They are deathly scared of regulating or nationalizing news or social media and want to abdicate government power to the seemingly neutral market. Meanwhile PR agencies and think tanks deliberately crafted and spread the climate hoax lie, and that side is where the money is.
The tankies, the people previously known as socialists, know precisely what to do about this shit. Except their system is ruled by the same calculus of power and wealth. So you'd need to deliberately choose a system that will be less liberal to fix climate change and propaganda by the capital.
Fully nationalizing news would be a terrible idea. But, having an American version of ABC, BBC, CBC, etc. would be a smart move. The national broadcaster is what keeps the news in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. from going as insane as the US. Often the national broadcaster is boring and stodgy, but because they're not profit-driven they can tell the full, true, boring story.
As for social media, you just need to mandate interoperability and break up monopolies. If you could leave Twitter for Mastodon and keep following and being followed by the same people, almost nobody would stay behind. Unfortunately, not only does that interoperability not exist, the DMCA makes it illegal to build certain tools to migrate off awful platforms. Facebook succeeded because they provided an easy migration path from Myspace. But, if you tried the same thing today, Facebook would sue you to oblivion.
For news, you could set up a trust and transfer ownership of each news station to the workers for a type of collective. Let them vote democratically how they want to run their news station or news paper. Let them elect editors and managers. Or something similar to that. Financing shouldn't really be a problem, after all governments can print money and run plenty of ministries and agencies.
You could do the same for social media, just transfer ownership to the collective of the workers. After that it is self-governing. That would be a massive change from corporate ownership, profit optimization and catering to advertising. Of course this is unthinkable.
And yeah I like the interoperability, the EU did something like this, mandating interop for messengers. But I'm not sure it really works.
Yeah, because if we know one thing, it's that a group of people never has outlandish and crazy beliefs.
Which are paid for by tax dollars. If you just print money endlessly you cause inflation, and eventually hyperinflation.
It doesn't seem to me like you've actually thought any of this through.
Yeah and that is the big lie right there. People have become so indoctrinated with the idea that profit seeking and unbridled greed is somehow neutral and can be trusted compared to things people might decide. That democracy is itself the problem, not the influence of capital on democracy. That we need to abdicate all power to protect us from the people with the crazy ideas. Instead we now get the best or worst of both worlds, capital using the most extreme beliefs to make money or gain power and social media pushing polarization for profit.
The inflation myth is a common fallacy btw. That only happens when essential goods (with "non elastic demand") become scarce.
PS: Anyway, I did say these things are unthinkable
Just because you're wrong about something doesn't mean the idea is unthinkable.