But think about all the billionaires losing profits!
There is really a strong argument that energy independence should have put renewable energy as part of the defense budget and been rolled out a long time ago if not for this stupid culture war that has formed around it. Let's rectify that issue already.
Could you imagine if....
We would be so far ahead of everyone on this planet. it's not even funny.
But the defence budget isn't actually about securing the country, it's about making sure there is conflict.
But then I won't be able to race my black-smoke-belching rolling-coal truck with my manly man buddies :(
Rolling coal is one of the most mindbogglingly stupid things Iโve ever heard of. Truly, it makes it seem like Idiocracy didnโt go nearly far enough in their hyperbole. Nobody couldโve predicted people being this aggressively dumb.
Speaking of doing stupid shit and rolling coal...
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a60747401/waller-texas-coal-rolling-cyclist-crash/
wtf is this ? a locomotive ?
Yes, in that it's a motive for locos
Steam locomotives burn far cleaner than whatever the hell this is. An efficiently running steam engine effectively consumes its own smoke and only exhausts waste steam.
Actually if everything else was fixed we could probably still allow things like monster truck rallies etc right?
No reason (other than a weird attachment to breathing in exhaust fumes) you can't have an electric powered Monster Truck.
In fact it makes a lot of sense. Can have Monster Truck rallies in indoor stadiums. Electric motors are really powerful. Monster Trucks aren't driving hundreds of miles so wouldn't need batteries that are all that big.
From Lemminaryโs link
An increasingly popular phenomenon at the time of the incident, coal rolling happens when a driver of a diesel truck floods the engine with more fuel than it can efficiently process, emitting a thick black plume of exhaust across the road. The emissions systems of diesel trucks are strictly regulated under federal law. But some truck owners modify their exhaust systems with illegal aftermarket parts, or fail to fix broken exhaust systems. In the 2010s, rolling coal became a kind of defiant act, an aggressive backlash against the increasing regulation of fossil fuels. People using forms of transportation that donโt burn oilโnamely, those riding bikes, walking, or driving an electric vehicleโbecame targets. Social media apps such as TikTok helped drive the #rollingcoal trend. Videos with captions like โPOV: You roll coal on every bicycle you see,โ showing the engorged tailpipe of a diesel truck expelling a bubbling smoke, accrued thousands, even millions of views.
They want that mad max life style
The absolutely unthinkable: financial losses for the people who have been making money by covering up the fact that they are destroying the planet for their own profit.
Add in one of the best-financed propaganda/obfuscation campaigns maintained for seven decades and public opinion mirrors what it gets fed from big-oil-owned media outlets.
Yeah this is the answer right here. The fossil fuel industry and their conservative allies (as well as far too many liberal politicians) have been feeding into a propaganda machine that has been fear-mongering climate change policies, telling the public continually that all those policies are going to do nothing but raise the price of gas or remove some convenience they have. I remember that time when Republicans were fear-mongering that the Democrats were coming after people's gas stoves, as if that was something that was even remotely likely. It was so fucking stupid but people were like "You can't take my stove!!!" like a bunch of dumb shits. I remember one dingus on Fox News who strapped himself to his gas stove like there was a demolition team coming to his house to take it down any minute as an idiotic publicity stunt. Literally no one but the drones who watch Fox News cared.
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?
- Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?
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.
- Never running out of oil?
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.
- Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?
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- Having cleaner air?
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.
- Investing in local and domestic research, education and fabrication
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:
- They've been convinced that climate change is a hoax. Nobody realistically knows how to fix people's beliefs about this. And, it's unlikely to change unless there's a radical change in media company ownership and bias, which means it's probably going to take decades to fix. It's more likely that the climate change deniers will die off of old age, than they're going to change their beliefs.
- They believe the current system works, so why change it? This is key. Even if they believed that climate change is real, it's really hard to convince someone to change a system that works.
- They believe (probably correctly) that the current system is good for their economy. Of course, most of the profits are flowing to the rich, and not being shared with the workers. However, the current system does employ a lot of workers.
- They think that renewable systems only work when it's sunny or when it's windy. There's a bit of truth to that, and for continent-wide purely renewable grid, you'd need to figure out some way of storing energy for when conditions aren't right for renewables. But, the problem is overblown because those solutions are coming online as fast as the grid is being updated.
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.
โPeak oilโ has been predicted for decades, and they just keep finding more and more oil.
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.
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, thatโs obviously a good thing for their economy.
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.
Profits will be good for the oil companies
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.
Theyโve been convinced that climate change is a hoax. Nobody realistically knows how to fix peopleโs beliefs about this.
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.
They think it's a hoax meant to funnel money into the pockets of scammers pushing these new green techs. They think it's just enriching liars who want to vilify things these people loved, all while making things somehow worse. Their vision isn't of a better future, they see a scammer getting rich while their power goes out every time it's cloudy outside or the wind stops.
Unfortunately, some of those things do happen.
The bigger scam is the massive negative externalities of petroleum consumption but that's an abstract concept and these people are simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know...
its true, I love oil SO MUCH and these climate scientists are just SO MEAN to oil, it makes me sad. im sad for my friend, oil.
good thing we can always trust oil execs. they're such honest guys!
It's really funny that you bring up the rolling blackouts. I'm assuming you are meaning in Texas, but since wind and solar there have been perfectly consistent while it is the coal burning plants that have been failing to meet the needs of the state and crashing their janky power grid your point is really quite stupid.
it's so fucked how often they're right to be suspicious about motives but only apply that suspicion to other industries or groups who aren't trying to trick them, and never their own, which are. I guess the first step a cult must take is immunize people against being affected by any other outside forces, malicious or not. they'll always implicitly trust the cult leaders who "let them in" on how their control works.
The core is about change. To accept climate change means they have to make changes to their lifestyle, and they don't like having to change. Beyond that, it's rationalizations and bad faith arguments from the usual grifters and corporations layered on top of that to justify the position they chose emotionally.
Educated populations tend to be more liberal, and exhibit more critical thinking. It's not a guarantee, but it tends to form a shield against blind indoctrination and especially religious fundamentalism.
Conservatives do not want an educated population.
Yeah, it took me longer than I would've thought to understand that. It's really hard to dumb yourself down and see their viewpoint a lot of the time. Scapegoating seems to work well for these folks.
Educated populations tend to be more liberal
Liberally educated populations tend to be more liberal. Kids coming out of Bob Jones University, Arizona State, and Yale can be as archly conservative as anyone you see on FOX News or read the byline of in the WSJ.
Conservatives do not want an educated population.
Conservatives want conservative propaganda to be the believes that decide who is taken seriously and who is dismissed as unserious, uneducated, and extremist. There's a rich body of conservative literature and ideology that you need to absorb before you can be taken seriously in the upper eschalons of the movement. The rank-and-file might revel in being a bunch of Know-Nothings, but the prelate class requires you to be well-versed in their dogma.
Education helps establish your priors and cements your conviction. People who don't know anything on a subject can be easily swayed. People who have a ingested a certain quantity of coherently structured works are much more intransigent. That's why institutions like the SCOTUS are such a joke. Its nine people who already made up their minds compromising to form a majority opinion before the case even starts, not nine idiot-savants rapidly accumulating an education on diverse subjects from a variety of experts before crafting a well-considered conclusion.
Liberally educated populations tend to be more liberal. Kids coming out of Bob Jones University, Arizona State, and Yale can be as archly conservative as anyone you see on FOX News or read the byline of in the WSJ.
The quality of the education matters. I'd argue that Jesuit priests, despite being educated in highly religious schools, tend to be the more liberal branch of Catholicism due to their emphasis on logic and analysis.
What I'm saying is that a good education is one that emphasizes critical thinking; that indoctrination is not education; and that people with strong critical thinking skills tend to be liberal. I believe that it's because the antithesis of dogma is critical thinking. Sure, it's not a guarantee, and the fact that Einstein was staunchly religious, and that Jesuits exist prove that you can have good logic and critical thinking skills and still be prone to religiosity. However, history shows that educated populations tend to be more progressive and less prone to falling for rhetoric and ideology.
Your point is important, though, and I'll emphasize my comment that it's important to distinguish between indoctrination and education. PragerU tried to call itself a university, but that doesn't make it one; and education curriculum directed by governments tend to include a fair amount of indoctrination.
There's a scene in The West Wing where Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) is talking to, I think, Ainsley Hayes (Emily Procter). As I remember it, there was a paper arguing a conservative viewpoint on something, and Sam reveals that he wrote the paper as part of a debate exercise. I always thought that was the epitome of a good education: being able to switch your viewpoint and really understand the other side's argument to the point where you can win a debate arguing for something you oppose. It reflects that you deeply understand both sides, not just your own dogma or opinions; it reflects that your position is probably based on the fact that you've considered both sides and chose your position thoughtfully. A good education will force people to debate a viewpoint they disagree with; a bad one will only have them debate the position they already hold. I wish I could find that clip on YouTube; I may have to rewatch the entire series (at least up until Sorkin left) just to find it again.
-
you might inconvenience them by taking away their plastic straws, plastic grocery bags, or making them separate recyclables.
-
you prevent them from rolling coal or dumping other combustion byproducts in the air, or toxic waste in the ground or water. That costs money to clean up or filter.
-
you make things cost more when you force them to expend effort to responsibly harvest natural resources like trees.
Basically watching the earth burn is cheaper, more profitable, and less inconvenient to the people who have a problem with having clean air and water, and a habitable planet.
-
The having fewer billionaires is always left out and always the reason none of the other stuff seems to matter
Why would renewable energy necessarily mean fewer billionaires? Major solar/wind generation plants have to be built by someone and somewhere, it seems like the best you're doing is making billionaires pivot their investments/changing which people the billionaires are.
Uh, yeah, actually. Those are exactly the things that the people who create and stoke climate denialism are afraid of. It's in the intrest of the fossil fuel industry to make these exact things unpopular.
Not a denier, but people fear the immediate costs. It's not clear what meaningful climate action looks like. But realistically it would very likely mean a higher cost of living in the immediate future, because not all economic sectors can be trivially decarbonized. There are also possible immediate benefits. But in any case that's what people fear.
When the higher cost of living is more important than actually living.
For the last couple of decades, people's quality of life have been decreasing while productivity numbers are still going up.
Trickle down supply side economics has completely failed. Taxing the wealthy and moving people from the marketing bullshit scam sector of the economy back towards manufacturing would put those increased productivity numbers to better use which would mean we could maintain the current quality of life while building infrastructure needed to have a better future.
The status quo is maintaining our current slow decline out of fear of change. The economy is shit for anyone but the wealthy right now, so why should we be afraid of changing things? Because the wealthy are telling us to be afraid?
I guess some people would lose their jobs and the economy in some areas could be hit hard
There is so much work to be done fighting climate change that we could easily replace every job lost.
But the economy will have to de-grow sooner or later. It is isnt an option. Sustainability is not a choice, it is an inevitability.
There is so much work to be done fighting climate change that we could easily replace every job lost.
I'm sure we theoretically could, but I'm not confident we will.
But the economy will have to de-grow sooner or later. It is isnt an option. Sustainability is not a choice, it is an inevitability.
That's another hard sell. Nobody wants to be the one getting sacked and have to figure out what to do
You mean those jobs in coal mines and coal factories that are literally being lost anyway because there's a dwindling supply and the billionaires who own those companies are finding ways to automate and kick those workers to the curb? You mean those jobs? Or are you talking about the couple hundred people who work on oil rigs? Certainly you're not thinking of gas station attendants or the guys who haul gas across the country. Because obviously they can't get other jobs that are comparable. เฒ โ _โ เฒ
This is more of that stupid fucking fear-mongering about climate change policy. Jobs come and go. Industries close down, other industries open up in their place. That's part of the nature of an economy. To say that people will be out of work because of X policy is and always has been a political fear tactic that stymies technological innovation and progress in favor of pushing old outdated shit that just happens to make a small number of people a huge amount of money.
the domestic oil industry employs more than a couple hundred people. and i don't think most people are ready to support a policy that sounds like "i want to take your job, the jobs of your friends and family, and destroy your town." they aren't going to vote to support progressive climate policy unless there is a solution to their very real concerns.
edit for clarification - i don't think most of the people employed in that industry or in communities it supports are ready, etc.
It's not stupid fear mongering when those jobs are currently being lost due to climate change concerns and a lot of the jobs aren't being replaced and people and certain areas are being hit hard by that. You're saying that it's already in process so it's fine which is just lol. Or that they can just get another jobs which is another lol from me.
Of course the people who are actually having to deal with losing their jobs or seeing their areas go through a rough change for the worse aren't gung-ho for that change. You'd be dumb to think those people will be fine with it because "oh it's just how economy goes" (LOL) or shit like that. Like I'm sure you think it's a change for the better, necessary and whatnot (and I'd agree) but we are talking about seeing it from those people's perspective.
- have to admit god didnโt do it
- have to admit EPA is good for something
- have to shun their good friends at oil companies
- have to give back their oil company bribes
- have to turn their back on their sports team, I mean political party
- have to give up their Tahoe
So much of modern O&G infrastructure exists to enable segregation.
Cars shield you from sharing a space with poor people going to and from work, and operate as a status symbol to let the police know who to bother. Toll Roads allow richer people to "skip the line" as it were. Free-standing housing means you never have to share anything - not the gym, not yard, not the parking. The suburbs allow you to flee "urban" inner cities. Flying means you never have to pass through poor states or cities on the way across the country, and the high and varied costs mean you never have to share a row or a plane with the wrong kind of people. Highways are used as real physical divides between sections of neighborhood that are designed to be difficult to cross, clearly delineating the "good" side of town from the "bad". And then you've got the jobs, with roughnecks sent out to the rural corners while white collar office workers live in their walled gardens at home.
If the American Dream is that picturesque Leave it To Beaver vision of a Levittown neighborhood where everyone knows their place, then the O&G industry is the magic fairy dust that makes it real.
Excellent points!
- have to use public transport or an electric car instead of their modifiable petrol cars (which they likely didn't modify, but car culture brainrot spread to everywhere)
it's the vroom vroom bullshit that will be hardest to end: the assholes who think building a loud, inefficient vehicle that spews unburnt fuel out of it's exhaust while the drivers race through neighborhoods creating absolute cacophony is their ideal fun, that it's somehow THEIR FUCKING RIGHT to shit on everyone with their garbage. They're going to hang on to their bullshit because it's the only personality they have, vroom vroom. they make me sick. the world is burning and they want to keep vroom vrooming
They'd have to admit that man could do something to the planet that their little tin god either can't or won't. There's more to it but biblical literalists are dangerously crazy when it comes to the future of the planet
We made a better world for nothing ๐ก
Exactly. We expect immediate and tangible rewards.
Give that oil rig worker a better job with bigger benefits and they'll jump ship on the spot. Promise them a cleaner future and they'll just laugh at you.
unstable countries with bad human rights
those are always preceded by a us coup, to extract oil cheaply and in peace.
One of the rationales of sane people regarding alternative energy sources is the cost of using "more expensive" energy sources when cheap (at least for the time being), albeit more polluting, alternatives like coal and natural gas are readily available.
The argument is that if Country A switches to full renewables, in the time it takes for the prices to become low enough to be competitive against coal, Country B, which is unscrupulous in its development and continues using coal as its main energy source, would gain a significant advantage over Country A.
You could even argue that for Country B, switching to alternative energy sources would be unfair, considering that Country A enjoyed decades of rapid growth and development using cheap coal, whereas Country B would not. Since Country A won't fully switch to alternative energy sources to maintain its supremacy, and Country B won't change for the sake of its development, we're effectively in a deadlock.
Personally, I think all countries should work together and switch to renewable energy sources to reduce the impact of climate change. Unfortunately, the world is not so simple, and the conflict is more nuanced than simply "keeping profits vs. creating a better world."
It's just long term vs. short term thinking really. And the question of who pays.
It costs an insane amount of money to have wars to secure the oil supply. But it's not the oil industry that pays that cost. So oil is only "cheaper" from a very limited context, but in a broader context, it's insanely expensive.
From an economic perspective, investing money into the infrastructure needed to eliminate dependency on oil is a no brainer. It'll probably cost less than the next oil war, and once that cost is paid, there is no need for multiple future oil wars.
Given the US pays for most of the costs of oil wars, you'd think the US would be leading the charge towards transitioning off of oil. But instead there's a lot of resistance in the US for this. There's a strange denial that leads people to simultaneously demand the government to make gas cheaper, while also being against wars in the middle east. How do people think the government makes the price of gas cheaper?
If only all the countries could come to some kind of climate energy agreement. Maybe they can meet someplace like oh say Paris or something and sign an agreement like that. ๐ค
We're already at the point that renewables are far cheaper than the alternatives. It's just the capital costs that are higher (compared to keeping existing FF), but that's not a huge issue for rich, developed countries.
So rich countries can massively invest in renewables and press their advantage. Ideally, these rich countries also subsidise renewable energy in developing countries (and to some extent, they are). But even without that in many cases it's cheaper to just skip building a whole FF industry altogether and go straight to renewables.
But how will people know the size of my pp if my car doesn't go vroom vroom.
Speakers with specially designed amplification spaces and vibrators attached to the frame.
Obviously.
The argument (I say this as a midwesterner who has lots of relatives and such who are regurgitating the prepublication lines) always comes back to โthe tech isnโt there yetโ โyou canโt recycle panels or turbine bladesโ โpanels and turbine blades donโt last worth a damnโ.
Whether or not any of that is true idk so how can I argue? My plate is pretty full on reading material.
So find the arguments theyโre using and go from there.
โthe tech isnโt there yetโ
tell them to get a solar quote for their home and compare it to their power bill. Very likely the monthly solar payments will be lower even with financing.
โyou canโt recycle panels or turbine bladesโ
firstly, that's not true, we are constantly improving our ability to recycle. Anyway, you sure as hell can't recycle coal or natural gas so that's a double standard.
โpanels and turbine blades donโt last worth a damnโ
they last a hell of a lot longer than fossil fuels do.
Oil rigs don't last forever either. Oil refineries are insanely complicated and are very costly to maintain.
Everything you own will break down without maintenance. Even with maintenance, it'll have to be replaced eventually.
Don't try to argue that wind turbines and solar panels are magical things that will solve all problems. Talk about them as they are... machines. But unlike the machines that run on oil, the cost isn't dependent on resources controlled by unstable countries. They're producing energy from local resources. No need for the government to invade a country to keep the price of oil down.
Isolationism tends to be a something people want but with oil you have to be involved with the politics in the Middle East. Sure the US might not be a net importer of oil, but if the oil companies can sell a barrel of oil to another country for a higher price they will. That's just how capitalism works. Unless you want a socialist oil industry? If not, oil prices will be determined by the global market rate, which means if you want cheap gas you need to care about the politics of the Middle East.
So it's a choice between the complexity of oil rigs, oil tankers, oil refineries, or the complexity of wind spinning around a turbine or a solar panel collecting photons. It's all complicated machinery in the end, but some of that machinery means you gotta be pals with Mister Bonesaw and using the other complicated machinery (Wind Turbines, Solar Panels, etc) means we can all tell that lunatic to go pound the sand above the oil underneath it that we don't care about anymore.
With some exceptions the answer is likely very simple:
They aren't denying climate change because they believe it isn't happening, that doesn't matter. They're denying it because they:
- Are among others who claim they deny and so they conform or become outcasts
- Dislike and fear change they don't understand on a fundamental level
- Fear challenging those beliefs because doing so risks admitting a regular part of their life has been lived in the wrong
Eventually these three things combine until denial becomes their natural state.
I know it's a weird take, but some of these people also seem obsessed with their cars, to the point they use it as a fashion accessory and a way to interact with people.
So they know if climate change becomes more popular, they risk people losing interest in their expensive toy, because they can't rev their engine anymore to assert their "alpha male" status. Reving their engine will actually push people away
I think part of climate change acceptance is finding people other hobbies honestly
But but muh coal mining towns!
I remember when there were programs to retrain coal miners to work with renewable resources, completely paid for by the renewable resources companies, but Big Coal and Big Oil threw a fit. I think Manchin ended up killing a lot of those things since his daughter or son is an exec in a coal company that he also invests in or some shit.
Appalachian here. No doubt curbing demand for coal and doing little to take up the slack in viable livelihood has dropped an economic bomb on an already historically depressed region. All of the programs you hear about teaching coal miners to code and such are superficial window dressing and often non-profit grifts that fold in a short time leaving executives to float away on golden parachutes. Whichever way you turn it, people here are exploited and propagandized. Most often attributing their woes to the wrong sources. Folks that are for sure feeling the effects of a changing climate with frequent severe storms, 1000 year floods, etc.
Compared to what happens from fucking over the climate, it would be so unbelievably cheap to give every coal miner in the country a million-dollar home and $100,000 a year tax-free salary for ten years to give them a chance go find new work.
All of those things lower profits of the current few people profiting the most (oligarchy).
The rest is just like sports - 'my team is better than yours regardless of record'.
But Exxon Mobil said I'd get hair on my palms and go blind.
What if we go through all the work to make a better world for no reason?
I think it's mostly tribalism and fear.
For everyone, to some extent, belief is social. You tend to believe what your in-group believes. If your in-group is big on science and admitting fault and such, it's not so bad. But if your beliefs are... I'm too tired to be nice... Right wing dog shit ahistorical afactual nonsense.. then you're in a worse place as far as having beliefs that match reality goes.
Secondly, fear. Admitting climate change and pollution exist means admitting uncomfortable truths. It means admitting things need to change, that the future may be from, and you have some culpability in the current state. The way things are now is familiar and comforting. Most people are, frankly, cowards, and will go to great lengths to avoid this kind of fear. Especially if it involves them not being a completely faultless person.
The longer you go being a denialist, I imagine the harder it is to change. Admitting fault isn't something most people do well. Again, because they are on some fundamental level cowards. Many people are deeply uncomfortable with admitting they were wrong about anything. Admitting you were fooled by climate denialism is a blow to the ego. Can't have that. Better stick to the current stance. And if it happens that the in-group also believes that, great, that's comforting.
We should probably come up with a way to make right wingers (the most scared people of all) think that addressing climate change plays into their in-group. Convince them solar is AMERICAN INGENUITY and that coal is a Chinese plot to poison the white race, and maybe you'd make some surprising (and awful) allies.
That or, like, completely destroy the Republican party, spend fifty years hard deploying green technology, and wait for conservatives to defend it because that's what they know, now.
Get them to believe their stance is woke and I'm sure they'll change it pretty quick ๐
Surely Flat Earthers could be convinced to change as they believe there's no atmosphere without a container. We should ask them to do an experiment where they put themselves in a closed container with a running car and ask them to sit inside and see what happens.
Best case scenario, they learn pollution = bad. Worst case scenario, they just sit in the car and remove themselves from the gene pool ๐คท๐ผโโ๏ธ
I think we're past denial and fear. It's fucking outside
Now what I think we have from former deniers is silence. They know they were wrong. They know they fucked up. They got real quiet
Aside from those bought and paid for by oil lobbies, I don't hear much. Denial isn't met with cheers anymore
But my coal job! I live in Virginia! If I'm not going to slave in the mines, by Jove, what else can I do? Install solar panels? Ha! I think not!
(I've never really heard one of these people give a satisfactory explanation for why not, but for the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to lived experience. Be nice if I knew though.)
The sad part is, some small towns with single employers like coal mining towns will probably become ghost towns as part of the transition. There's really not many ways to transition a local economy rapidly enough to save the town. And with coal mining in particular, the skillset needed to work in the mines is not necessarily a skillset that will translate well into other fields, at least not in the time the towns will have between the mine closure and everyone leaving for greener pastures
We made the world a better place for NOTHING?
Yeah but have you thought about woke? /s
Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?
They think it's more expensive due to the very first time they saw renewables used when they weren't as cost effective as oil, and have been propagandized to with that narrative ever since by billionaire-owned media.
Never running out of oil?
They think there's always going to be enough, and we can just take more from other countries or also use coal to fix that problem.
Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?
They don't care about anyone who's not American, and even then, they're very distanced from the reality of the working class.
Having cleaner air?
They simply never consider this as it's never brought up by any of the media they watch. They also probably just don't think it's a big deal since "I can breath this air just fine already!"
Boosting local economy
See: people like Donald Trump saying clean energy would help china and harm the American economy
Investing in local and domestic research, education, and fabrication?
See above.
These people definitely want these things, they just don't actually believe it will do anything in the first place to help with them, or simply aren't aware that an issue exists at all because of the heavy pro-oil propaganda they've lapped up over the years.
It costs the shareholders money and destroys many billionaires empires.
Bbbbut... cOmMuNiSm
A lot of people don't realize that coal, gas and oil are finite resources. Uneducated people don't accept the fact that oil comes from fossilized dinosaurs and it took millions of years to become oil. It's all a hoax to them.
These are considered a negative for people who actively want Neo Feudalism
Big car doesn't go vroom vroom
Climate change deniers parrot the oil companies that want all the monies
They can't help but take a hit at MENA countries. Who destabilized them? They never mention that; and as if your human rights track record is any better, just different. They also never mention that the US is the biggest producer of oil.
It's not black and white. Renewable energy is better than burning oil, agreed.
But i.e. there is no recycling process for old wind turbines (carbon fiber) - they need to be replaced after 30 years or solar panels (composite material). And e-cars need batteries which need lithium (mines). Also rare earths are needed for generators and electric motors - rare earths are... rare and the production requires lots of energy and produces toxic waste (in China... which has kind of a monopoly on it. )
Maybe solvable problems in the long run but currently these are unsolved issues...
Hey you know which energy sources also have lots of unsolved issues with waste disposal and pollution? Fossils.
Often the issue isn't recycling. Under capitalism, it's not profitable. This is the issue.
There's a massive amount of ongoing research into lithium-free batteries. Sodium-ion has gotten a big boost recently and real solid-state batteries are starting to see commercialization.
Lol, ever seen a coal disposal plant? Not even nuclear disasters look as bad as your average coal disposal plant. Any green or even "green" solution is leagues better than our current fossil infrastructure.
Also way to pick some of the worse solutions, windmills are generally just bad and e-cars are largely just car companies going "car bad for life on earth? No...it's not...na~ah...see! Totally good now! :)", it's quite literally kicking a can down the road, or rather hiding from the gaze of the rich.
The problem with cars isn't necessarily that they're dirty, it's that we have soo god damn fucking many of em EVERYWHERE, which amplifies all of their small issue to such a degree it makes it a leading cause of emissions among others issues. Like once we get to car infrastructure, that's when it really takes a nose dive. It's a wonder anything still even works...
In case of solar panels, it's honestly not that bad, once we cut back the elephant in the room, makes plenty of space of solar production. Also nuclear should be the end all be all, and don't give me no shit about waste storage, countries like Finland are volunteering to be used as storage, because it generates business for em. As long as you don't store it in an old salt mine (like what the actual fuck were the Germans thinking there???), again it's not that bad, especially compared to the elephant in the room... I'd prompt ya to look at a coal disposal plant again.
There is no recycling of oil refineries either. So that argument is useless. Everything breaks down.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Regardless of the topic, posing a statement as a question is disingenuous and only enraging climate change advocates.
Or is that point, tankie.
There is a grain of truth to that. Posting it as series of rhetorical questions is essentially breeding aggression and harassment, and while the cause is very noble, this will probably turn off the opponents instead of convincing them.
And we need the latter.
Those are all good goals, but the problem is it is being shoved down our throats everywhere from the grocery store to the gas pump, while people are just trying to not starve and/or become homeless. The "15 Minute Cities" initiative is also hotly debated as people would be looking at giving up a ton of individual freedoms and it looks like a slippery slope to not being allowed to leave without requiring permission from some sort of authority. There is a massive development in my town (130k pop) that literally has "Sustainable development means making the right decisions NOW" plastered on the plywood fence surrounding the dev. They are putting retail and commercial at ground floor, with 8 stories of "condos" above. ONE driveway in and out, and limited parking planned. How easy would it be to....just NOT ALLOW you to leave? Plenty of nosy Little Hitlers would sign up for that.
"But THX1138, WHY would you need to go anywhere? Everything here is provided for you" Yeah, miss me with that dystopian crap.
Reality SHOULD be" shoved down your throat", you believe nonsense conspiracy theories and do not have a right to avoid said reality. Wanting to be able to walk or bike or take a train to work the next town over is not some authoritarian conspiracy. You legit sound like nazis sending away physisists with their "Jewish science
"shoved down our throats" aaand I stopped reading
I can also list only positive things about a thing being argued for, while omitting any of its consequences.
What exactly are the consequences in this case?
muh v8 motooooooor
A lot of focus and money spent on renewables that could have been spent elsewhere, like on infrastructure or welfare. Wind and solar farms take up a lot of space that could be used for other things like nature. I'm not saying renewables are bad, but it's always a compromise on where to spend resources.
Can you list the consequences or are you just giving soundbites?
Everybody gather round and get a look at this idiot
