• whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not saying I disagree but methinks many of you don’t realize everything we use fossil fuels for from plastic to fertilizer it’s not just gas. You think costs are spiralling out of control now… oooh boy just wait.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Society would change, a lot. I’d be very interested in what a plastic-phobic society would look like. Remember milkmen, who would take one empty glass bottle and give you a full one?

          • Bloodyhog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is actually another myth: the planet will do just fine - it is the humanity that will die as the result. Not that we would care about this nuance at that point…

              • Bloodyhog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That will take a few hundred million years to recover then. Not to the same biome, there will certainly be some crazy species popping up. From what i recall, Earth still has a few billion years before it is consumed by the Sun, should be ok.

                • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s possible to ruin the planet enough that the things supporting life, the ozone layer and the atmosphere for example, are wrecked beyond repair and that the planet becomes permanently lifeless. Sure, technically the planet will still exist, but so will every other dead rock in space.

    • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.

      So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn’t the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really (“really”) need to make from oil?

      The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don’t really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.

      Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and “smoothly”. If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won’t they?

      • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re working on all sorts of alternatives for fuels and for the plastics as you mention. I think we’ll be fine as far as that’s concerned. I agree that prices will go up and it will be hard. And it’s up to governments to deal with these things responsibly.

        The main issue is politics in a broken system and politicians being paid by companies that don’t have our best interests in mind. How do we fight back?

        Oh and trains. We need lots of trans because cleaning power supply is easier and cleaner than making batteries for trucks.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.

        unfortunately the last two decades of discovery have provided ample petroleum and natural gas sources that won’t be exploited unless we commit to fully and intentionally cooking the atmosphere.

        we’re not going to run out of petroleum, which will make it even harder to get people to leave it behind.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t say we should get rid of all plastics. Some of it is required for medical purposes and food safety.

      I would love for governments to grow some balls and start fighting against climate change. But in the case that that doesn’t happen (and it probably won’t because money). I would rather take price increase and inconvenience in exchange for a planet that’s still livable in 100 years.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        we could also use some responsible disposal rules for plastics to prevent them from ending up in our circulatory systems and oceans.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plant based plastics are a thing.

      Really, the only way we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels successfully is if they are more expensive than the alternatives. I hear shit like that all the time (big example is meat alternatives). Simply removing the subsidies that fossil fuels do enjoy would go a long way toward making them less attractive.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Long life oil based plastic products aren’t so bad.

        Meat alternatives are bullshit. We need meat*, and grass fed beef and lamb are probably carbon neutral, almost definitely carbon neutral if anything comes of the seaweed fix for their methane emissions

        And yes, kill government support for the oil industry and uses for the oil. Animals are going to be important for providing fertiliser for fields that abandon industrial stuff

        *We can survive without it, we can do well with bacterial sourced creatine supplements, but we thrive on real meat

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Meat alternatives are perfectly fine. And tons of people do perfectly fine with zero meat at all and thrive just as much as people who eat meat daily. I have no qualms with eating meat since I do but let’s not kids ourselves and say it is a necessity.

          The big problem with beef is the amount of land and resources it takes. It takes a fuck ton of water and feed to get a pound of beef. The added carbon from beef is largely due to transportation of the feed, electricity, and also transportation of it on its way to the store. If that were all green sources, cattle would basically be carbon neutral. We are a long way from that though. And even if the energy sources for those were green, the other resources they eat up leads to massive destruction of environments.

          Animals can certainly play a part in sustainable farming but the amount we currently have is absurd and is nowhere near sustainable. Just killing the subsidies alone would bring it significantly closer to sustainable. If the US stopped providing subsidies for the cattle industry, beef would be $35/lb.

          • psud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Veganism is unhealthy

            The land used for beef isn’t useful for anything else. In Australia it’s arid grasslands. We can’t eat grass, sheep and cows can turn grass into wool and milk and meat

            Transportation of feed is not a factor in grass fed, grass finished animals

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who said anything about veganism? You do know that being a vegetarian is not the same as being vegan, right?

              If the beef industry was largely composed of grass fed cattle that requires no grass to be watered, there would be much less of an issue. But that only makes up a small percentage of the industry. And saying that grassland is not useful for anything ignores the ecosystem that is already there. It may be arid but it is not devoid of life.

              But forcing a sustainable model and removing subsidies would absolutely go a long way toward mitigating the environmental impact of the beef industry since beef would likely be USD $70/lb.

            • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              A statement like “veganism is unhealthy” is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?

              There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.

              And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).

              “Veganism is unhealthy” in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren’t mindful of what you’re eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let’s go ahead and label that unhealthy too.

      • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re right, I think. But isn’t that the entire problem ? government collusion with private interests ?

    • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost all of the things have fossil fuel free alternatives and the out of control costs are mostly from corporate greed. Strict but fair price controls would enable a society that can afford not to use fossil fuels for all but a few things.

    • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      We didn’t, they decided to force it onto us. JPEG-XL is technically superior, but they refused to implement it into Chromium to push their own garbage because they know most people use Chromium anyway.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just switch to Firefox nightly

        I have no idea why it doesn’t work in Firefox standard, the option to turn support on is there but it does nothing

        • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I noticed that, nice to know it’s in nightly.

          Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone’s gonna actually use the format because the vast majority of people can’t use it.

          • hare_ware@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sites should nag people for using an “Unsupported Browser” and tell them to switch to a modern & secure one like Firefox or Librewolf.

    • francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would only make you feel good. It would not make real change.

      I’m frustrated that I want to get a full off the grid solar setup but then it’ll cost 25K and won’t really offset itself until 10 years or more. I’ll feel good about being net zero in home energy usage but that is not a cost that the average person can afford.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’ll be more than $25k. A battery alone is $10k, and a 10kw system is more than $25k.

        Take a look at a year’s worth of electricity bills to see what size you actually need to hit zero. Consider where a future EV fits in.

  • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fossil fuels cause massive environmental damage. Let’s cause some more!

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ah yes, “enlightened” centrism, where causing relatively insignificant damage to stop the destruction of the planet is just as bad as destroying the planet for profit… 🤦‍♀️

      This shitty take reeks of being

      more devoted to “order” than to justice; and preferring a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

      • PatFusty@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your take is bad. The person who is destroying the planet isnt some conpany that sells you shit. They just give you what you want for some competitive price. I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mostly agree with this. Companies only pollute as part of their process for making whatever good or service it is that they sell. They only sell those goods or services because people are buying. If suddenly everybody stopped buying and switched 100% to growing their own crops, the pollution from corporations would drop to zero. Not because they’d suddenly care about the environment, but because you don’t spew out a ton of CO2 making a widget if nobody’s buying widgets.

          Having said that, corporations are optimized to produce as much profit as possible. If it’s cheaper to run a plant on coal and they can get away with it, they’ll do it.

          As consumers, we have no real way to audit a company’s supply chain. Even a government would have trouble doing it since most supply chains are international. If I honestly wanted to buy the most ethically-created widget out there, I’d have to trust a lot of people’s stories about where everything comes from. And, because corporations know how hard it is to audit their supply chains, they’re incentivized to save any bucks they can, even if that means massive pollution, massive suffering, and so-on.

          Then there’s lobbying. It would be nice if the government passed a law that required audited supply chains, but the government won’t because it’s corrupt. Evil government. But, the government won’t pass anything like that because corporations will lobby against it and bribe politicians to make sure it never happens. Evil corporations. But, the money corporations have to lobby / bribe comes from their revenues, which come from people buying their goods and services. Evil consumers. But, consumers don’t know which corporations are lobbying and bribing because there’s no audit trail. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law requiring audit trails…

          Fundamentally, we can only do what we can do. Part of that is admitting we’re part of the problem. If you own an F-150 for status, not because you move heavy things often, you’re a big part of the problem. If you live in a part of the world where you need central heating in the winter, you’re part of the problem. If you run air conditioning in the summer, you’re part of the problem. If you use a car (even an electric one) instead of public transit, you’re part of the problem. If you buy potato chips in a plastic bag, you’re part of the problem. If you eat meat, you’re part of the problem. If you have kids, you’re a huge part of the problem. If you watch sports, you’re part of the problem.

          • PatFusty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is the true black pill. We are in a loop where we as the general public are in control, but everything is so convoluted so we are more comfortable shifting blame to the next guy. Its attractive to say that we cant see the supply chain but in the end it wont matter unless we start caring about it.

            But what does it mean to care in this case? We can end lobbying, but we dont vote for that because it might be in an omnibus bill that also gives tax breaks to billionaires. We can end overfishing, but we like eating sushi on Fridays even though we live in Omaha. We can reduce overspending on useless purchases, but I have undiagnosed depression and spending gives me endorphins.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.

          Yeah that’s the point. We know people will choose the cheaper option even if it fucks up their future.

          Some oil refineries getting exploded would result in the “worse for the environment” option to be more expensive than the green option. Now I don’t think we’re at that point yet, but without significant changes, in a few years we may reach the point where blowing up a refinery is the only way for people to have a chance for survival.

    • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What did you think all of the talk about revolution involved? Radical change isn’t normally achieved through peaceful measures

        • Orvorn@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is actually a popular misconception. MLK was just as radical as Malcolm X, it’s just that his more radical writings and speeches are not as popular or quoted. Libs and conservatives both want you to believe that MLK was a reasonable progressive liberal, when in fact he despised them. I say this as a huge fan of both MLK and Malcolm X, and I had this explained to me initially by a professor of African American history at university.

          • Mambert@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Radical, yes. But as big as an advocate for violence as Malcolm? I admit I haven’t read much on MLK.

        • Thevenin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Another way to say it is that every movement needs a carrot, a stick, and an ultimatum. The carrot is evangelizing the injustice (MLK), the stick is direct action (Malcolm X), and the ultimatum is an implicit show of force and dedication that demonstrates how many people will resort to the stick if the carrot is not accepted (the mach on Washington).

          While I am nearly always in the peaceful outreach camp, I strongly suspect that my efforts will not see fruition until breathless WSJ editorials start describing environmentalists as “dangerous” and “unamerican.”

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny how the people who want to harm the oil companies are “terrorists,” but the people literally destroying the earth are not

        • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Radical? Sure. Terrorist? Nah. Liberals (and especially right wing libs) are violent towards marginalized groups and literally the planet itself, among others. Marxists, anarchists, etc. are violent towards capitalism and those who seek to uphold it. Revolution takes shape in many ways and some of those are violent, particularly towards the end. Don’t act like the system we’re living in isn’t abhorrent and violent. Politics in all of its forms boil down to violence. What are you seeking to build, what needs to be destroyed, who stands in your way, and what means are you able to use? That’s politics in a nutshell. Answer those questions for the majority of governments the world over and then answer them for your left wing Boogeyman of choice. Which sounds like it’s worth fighting for?

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying “OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning”?

      Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’ve chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it’ll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.

            • snowbell@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It could be said that blocking traffic benefits oil producers by increasing gasoline usage and making people less sympathetic to the cause against them. Wasn’t there a case of someone in the oil industry paying people to protest in a similarly asinine way?

    • FrankHerbert@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oil prices rising won’t just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.

          Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.

          Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d like just a little terrorism and murder, just enough to scare off investors and insurers from fossil fuel producers, refiners, distributors and mass users, to speed things up and maybe prevent the uncountable future deaths from failed monsoons, heat waves, overpowered storms, and eventually sea level rises

      • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re probably gonna make it worse for everyone. It’s probably more profitable to have more security around the infrastructure than to just abandon it, so that’s more expensive. You’re gonna make it more difficult to convince people to actually believe in climate change and legislation that helps the cause, since the climate movement is associated with terrorism.

        Just vote for the candidates that actually care about the climate and invest in preserving it. You can also help a little bit by using things that have a very low carbon footprint over its lifetime, like an electric car or using public transportation. These things are just off the top of my head but terrorism ain’t it.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just vote for the candidates that actually care about the climate

          I vote green. Americans can’t unless they’re willing to throw their vote away

          You can also help a little bit by using things that have a very low carbon footprint over its lifetime

          Cars are a tiny fraction of a country’s carbon footprint

          • Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%
          • Direct Industrial Processes: 5.2%
          • Waste: 3.2%
          • Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use: 18.4%

          Energy includes road transport which is 11.9%, of which cars+motorbikes+buses is 60% so 7.4% overall

          Animal agriculture is about the same as passenger transport

          My EV is a drop in the bucket. Only fossil fuel investors and governments can move the needle

          Carbon numbers are from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

          • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I vote green. Americans can’t unless they’re willing to throw their vote away

            Not necessarily, you can vote for someone who invests in nuclear over someone who invests back into coal

            Cars are a tiny fraction of a country’s carbon footprint

            Maybe, but there are other steps that you can take to minimize your print. Something like a solar array. Sure these are very small steps but they aren’t a money sink like they used to be and if enough people adopt them, they could do something.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine you’re in a room and someone is pumping some gas into the room. SSsssssssssssssss.

      The people pumping in the gas say “don’t worry it’ll be ok, just keep on doing your work, trust us!” But the smartest people in the room all say “yeah… that’s gonna kill us eventually.”

      One guy starts kicking at the vent the gas is coming from.

      Another guy says “keep that racket down! I want to be a good boy and get my work done!”

      Who is the reasonable person in this scenario?

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Let me fix that analogy. Imagine everyone in the room is pumping varying amounts of gas into the room and if they suddenly decide to stop, a significant number of people in the room are going to die.

        Now sure, people are going to die anyway, but humans tend to be a lot more comfortable with the negative consequences of inaction than the negative consequences of action.

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What would it require for people to restructure modern society in a way that would allow humans to stop producing greenhouse gases? A lot of actions. We can’t simply “stop” without the widespread availability of alternative technologies for energy production and transportation.

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We are already allowed to stop. Turning on a machine is an action. We don’t need more technology to stop using existing technology.

              It sounds like your concern is more systemic than the literal action of polluting. In which case, the action we’re currently taking is legal protection of polluters from people who would defend themselves.

              Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but we aren’t entitled to all the same stuff we have today, at the cost of destroying the climate. We’re essentially stealing from future people.

      • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I fully agree with the sentiment… but I’m also not sure kicking at the vent will do much to stop the room from filling. To solve that I think we’d need to tackle the larger forces creating a situation where someone somehow benefits from the absurd situation of pumping gas into this hypothetical shared room…aka economic system.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you think the reasonable person is the one that wants to sit around debating who’s fault it is while gas is still pumped into the room is the reasonable person?

          We shouldn’t damage that gas pump because an underpaid worker installed it? We don’t want to be a nuisance! SSSSSSssssssssssssss…

      • IDriveWhileTired@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Your mistake is to assume everyone is on the same level, having access to the same amounts of resources. The guy asking you to let him do his job is doing so in order to survive. He doesn’t think four generations ahead. He barely thinks four meals ahead.

        So the guy working to survive is the reasonable one, whilst people with no food, power, living, clothing, infrastructure, or any real form of insecurity, who ask them to start kicking the vent are just too obtuse and unaware of the real world to start thinking about reason.

        Global warming is bad. Your kids crying themselves to sleep because of hunger is worse. I don’t care what your argument is. It is worse. So stop attacking people trying to survive, and start looking for alternatives before asking people to give their lives up, for your kids future. Be less selfish.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Transit would adapt quickly. Electric rail is easy. It’d only be a few shit years

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is dumb. I hope some mentally unstable person takes this to heart and fucks everything up for everyone so we can atleast have someone to point fingers.

    • Napain@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      people who read a meme and then commit a terrorist attack are kind of a long shot and needed help to begin with