Climate change and the fossil fuel industry

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So rollback all the advancements and our way of life?

That seems a lot more reasonable to me than your carefree attitude of "**** it the human race is ****ed anyways so why give a shit about not killing it off sooner."

You act like democrats are ridiculous for wanting to actually do something about this shit, when I have seen nobody suggest just straight up abandoning fossil fuels all at once immediately, while I have on the other hand seen several people (including yourself) with the attitude that we should do absolutely nothing about this very serious issue.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Pollution is a problem in developing countries due to them lacking in greener techniques for extracting fossil fuels and resources for research and replacement. This is not an issue in the U.S.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
If want to fight causes of pollution then focus on issues of developing countries. Don't derail your own.

And if that shift actually took place, then such a shift would be much more doable for the rest of the world as a whole, since:
1. The US would actually set a precedent for such a shift happening
2. The necessary technology would be much more developed
3. The US, a major world power and one of the members of the Council of Five or whatever in the UN, could actually push for changes in international law and policy to drive such a change on a Global scale while actually being a good example rather than coming across as a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
By the way, extinction is also inevitable. If not through our own devices, the natural order will get rid of us one day with its own devices. Don't worry about it. Worry about how to manage things (correctly) at present.

That's tantamount to a person saying "Well I'm gonna die someday anyways, so I'm gonna forgo my physical health for instant gratification and eat like a pig and die of health problems before I'm forty" or "I'm gonna die one day so I'm gonna **** as many bitches as possible and get aids and die" or "I'm gonna die anyways someday and school is tedious so I'm just gonna **** around in school and not give a **** about my education and have a really shitty future when I don't have enough of an education to make a decent life for myself."

It's the same shitty, immature, lazy and childish principal demonstrated above, but it's even worse because whereas the above examples are people ****ing themselves over with their shitty short term decisions that don't take the future into consideration at all, people like you are ****ing over the rest of the planet as well, and future generations that will either be ****ed over by our shitty decisions or never get the opportunity to experience life in the first place because we ****ed the human race over prematurely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. You generally either avoid or try and sugarcoat.

Exactly. Sadly you're too dense to realize that makes you equal parts petty and moronic.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You hope thousands of people are killed, wow. did you thumbs up that facebook vid?

Lmao, the guy just does the work for me at this point. He trolls himself. I love the smell of intolerance from liberals in the morning.

Or in the afternoon as well. These people are walking, talking, parodies.

What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered.

So what's S_W_LeGenD's argument? He acknowledges man made climate change but thinks we shouldn't do anything about it? Or that it's nowhere near as serious as we think? What's his feelings on the matter in a nutshell?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So what's S_W_LeGenD's argument? He acknowledges man made climate change but thinks we shouldn't do anything about it? Or that it's nowhere near as serious as we think? What's his feelings on the matter in a nutshell?

Seems to be that since he believes humans will eventually go extinct at some point in the future, who really cares in thinking about the long term. It's all about the short term gains.

tl;dr version: He's an idiot; it's reflected in his idiotic argument

After re-reading his OP, I can't find any acknowledgement that man made climate change is a threat. I can only take that to mean that he believes it doesn't even exist, or that it's insignificant.

Which... yeah, how do you argue with someone like that? "It's a conspiracy!" "It's a hoax!" "Climate scientists are all shills!" And if he's not a conspiracy theorist, then he's willfully avoiding all data and research that shows man-made climate change exists, and is a huge threat to our civilization and the planet's biodiversity.

But don't take ma jerbs.

Originally posted by Firefly218
No one is saying we should abruptly close down the fossil fuel industry, that needs to be done gradually. What we're saying needs to be done is more investment in cheaper and efficient clean energy. Development of solar technology and improvement of wind farm effectiveness. Stuff like that.

Unfortunately, republicans would rather completely reject the science of global warming and instead embolden the fossil fuel industry by lifting regulations and giving tax breaks.

Ever wonder why oil is cheap right now? Due to shale revolution.

Benefits of Shale revolution are multi-fold:-

1. Domestic production of oil increasing
2. New job opportunities
3. Oil imports decreasing
4. Cost of oil low
5. Reduction in trade deficit
6. Greater relief for working classes

More importantly, Shale industry is not an environmental hazard. It is much greener than the coal mining industry and it is a reasonable substitute as well. And it getting greener with newer techniques: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-for-greener-fracking/

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to shut down the Industry on the whole. Full stop. Proof here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2016/03/25/hillary-bernie-hydraulic-fracturing-and-the-future-of-us-oil-and-gas-production/#247e97fa41d9

That is the problem. Popular politicians are becoming reckless in their approach to sensitive aspects of the economy.

U.S. is experiencing trade deficit since 1970s and national debt has approached 19.5 Trillion USD mark. China (alone) owns over 1 Trillion USD of this debt. Try to understand the implications if this debt continues to climb unaccounted for indefinite period. U.S. risks becoming another Venezuela. A lot more is at stake in this matter than concerns of environmentalists.

My position is that newer Industrial developments are much greener than the past and they should be encouraged along-with the pressure of keeping them green and making them further greener whenever possible. Shutting down the Industry and relying on imports is not going to be a sustainable goal for long. In short, economic implications should be accounted for along-with concerns for environment.

And do keep in mind the fact that climate change is a component of natural order and will occur no matter what. So using climate change as the basis to terminate the industry (that not just defines our way of life but powers the entire modern societal construct) is not going to solve anything, rather create more problems for the coming generations to deal with. Possibility of civil war like conditions cannot be ruled out either. So don't push the buttons too hard. Play it safe.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And do keep in mind the fact that climate change is a component of natural order and will occur no matter what.

It happens no matter what... It doesn't happen as fast as it is, to the degree that it is, without serious detrimental effects to the biosphere. We will pay for the monumental changes that we've wreaked upon the climate in our tiny slice of time as an industrialized species. That price will far exceed the scale or importance of any national debt or trade deficit, and it will stick around for a long, long time.

👆

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ok, the rest of your post notwithstanding, this part right here is probably the biggest problem.

It happens no matter what... It doesn't happen as fast as it is, to the degree that it is, without serious detrimental effects to the biosphere. We will pay for the monumental changes that we've wreaked upon the climate in our tiny slice of time as an industrialized species. That price will far exceed the scale or importance of any national debt or trade deficit, and it will stick around for a long, long time.

For example: if the yellowstone volcano becomes active and erupts soon after, what can you do about it? It will wreck the environment in a much shorter span of time and a large number of life-forms (including people) will die as a consequence.

I understand the contribution of fossil fuel industry to the global warming phenomenon but outright stopping it is sheer stupidity and not economically feasible. Business entities are paying attention and adopting greener methods for extraction. Try to stop them and environmentalists will have a lot more to worry about then just environmental factors. Try to understand the argument here.

You want all the perks of Industrial age but you want to stop the industry itself? Makes any sense to you? You want to change the world, do it wisely and in a calculative manner. You want a better life for yourself? Others want the same for themselves. Don't be a hypocrite.

Please also request Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to live in a jungle: I am sure they would. Leaders should lead by setting examples, shouldn't they? 🙄

Originally posted by Beniboybling
What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered.

It's okay to just admit you have nothing else to say.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Environmental changes can be abrupt and/or slow. There is not hard and fast rule for them.

For example: if the yellowstone volcano becomes active and erupts soon after, what can you do about it? It will wreck the environment in a span of a few days and a large number of life-forms (including people) will die as a consequence.

I understand the contribution of fossil fuel industry to the global warming phenomenon but outright stopping it is sheer stupidity and not economically feasible. Business entities are paying attention and adopting greener methods for extraction. Try to stop them and environmentalists will have a lot more to worry about then just environmental factors. Try to understand the argument here.

You want all the perks of Industrial age but you want to stop the industry itself? Makes any sense to you? You want to change the world, do it wisely and in a calculative manner. You want a better life for yourself? Others want the same for themselves. Don't be a hypocrite.

Request Hillary Clinton to live in a jungle: I am sure she would.

When Yellowstone blows, or when an asteroid collides with Earth again, we have to either not be here, or have the technological capacity to mitigate or prevent the disaster. And doing so will require shitloads of energy. If we ever hope to move up the Kardashev scale, we need to harness more energy. Fossil fuels are just the beginning.

The issue isn't "Stop using fossil fuels this instant!" It's "Find a reliable alternative ASAP!" And if we can't do that soon enough, then we'll need to slash our energy usage until we can find a replacement. I've sequenced the issue in an easy to understand way:

1.) We can't stop using fossil fuels until we can replace them fully. And:
2.) If we don't stop using them (or keep using them until they're all gone) then we'll wreck the planet as a habitable home. So:
3.) So we need to replace fossil fuels with a viable, cleaner, alternative. But:
4.) If we can't create such a replacement soon enough, then in the name of not devastating the planet's biosphere any further, we'll need to cut back on energy usage. Yet:
5.) No one wants to (or realistically can without massively destabilizing the global civilization) cut back on energy usage. So:
6.) Go back to #3, continue from there.

Your concerns over job loss, national debt, budget deficits, and stagnating economies are all very valid, no one who doesn't get offended and contrarian for a living will deny that. But frankly, I'm not interested in solving these relatively small-scale and short-term problems of economy if it means using large-scale and long-terms injuries to the planet's ability to play host to our species to solve them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nobody's saying to immediately get rid of all fossil fuels, they're saying to regulate the fossil fuel industry to dial back some of its damage and invest more into renewable resources so those companies can actually have room and make some money in the economy and get research funding so the technology can actually develop to an extent where we can use it more effectively, all so we can gradually shift from fossil fuels to alternative renewable energy.

That seems a lot more reasonable to me than your carefree attitude of "**** it the human race is ****ed anyways so why give a shit about not killing it off sooner."

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You act like democrats are ridiculous for wanting to actually do something about this shit, when I have seen nobody suggest just straight up abandoning fossil fuels all at once immediately, while I have on the other hand seen several people (including yourself) with the attitude that we should do absolutely nothing about this very serious issue.

But if Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders represent the future of Democrats, you are better off with the Republicans for now.

A balanced approach is need of the hour.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Really? Cause the US has more CO2 emissions than any other country aside from China.

So acknowledge the improvements and encourage the trend.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If the US actually works to solve this problem internally, then we'd be reducing the emissions of the second worst country in terms of CO2 emissions would definitely have an impact.
And if we emphasize a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy in a country as developed as the US, then the technology relating to renewable energy would end up advancing and developing more.

And if that shift actually took place, then such a shift would be much more doable for the rest of the world as a whole, since:
1. The US would actually set a precedent for such a shift happening
2. The necessary technology would be much more developed
3. The US, a major world power and one of the members of the Council of Five or whatever in the UN, could actually push for changes in international law and policy to drive such a change on a Global scale while actually being a good example rather than coming across as a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This is some of the most childish thinking I've ever heard. "The human race is gonna die off anyways, so let's not give a **** about trying to make it last longer or trying not to make it end even sooner than it otherwise would" is childish, lazy, and self-destructive.

That's tantamount to a person saying "Well I'm gonna die someday anyways, so I'm gonna forgo my physical health for instant gratification and eat like a pig and die of health problems before I'm forty" or "I'm gonna die one day so I'm gonna **** as many bitches as possible and get aids and die" or "I'm gonna die anyways someday and school is tedious so I'm just gonna **** around in school and not give a **** about my education and have a really shitty future when I don't have enough of an education to make a decent life for myself."

It's the same shitty, immature, lazy and childish principal demonstrated above, but it's even worse because whereas the above examples are people ****ing themselves over with their shitty short term decisions that don't take the future into consideration at all, people like you are ****ing over the rest of the planet as well, and future generations that will either be ****ed over by our shitty decisions or never get the opportunity to experience life in the first place because we ****ed the human race over prematurely.

I am an advocate of eco-friendly stuff but I am also pragmatic and understand how things work in reality.

Modern era society is the product of fossil fuel industry. Don't take its perks for granted. Our life-styles depend upon it. We should strive to make it greener, not shut it down. Learn a thing or two about economics.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oi vey. No sane and informed person could or would argue for less energy use, or a societal devolution back to pre-industry. That's the purview of Luddites and Tyler Durden.

That's the purview of Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders as well. Kindly do something about them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When Yellowstone blows, or when an asteroid collides with Earth again, we have to either not be here, or have the technological capacity to mitigate or prevent the disaster. And doing so will require shitloads of energy. If we ever hope to move up the Kardashev scale, we need to harness more energy. Fossil fuels are just the beginning.

1. Yellowstone volcano is active. Scary thing is that it is not the only supervolcano that is active.

2. A large asteroid will come very close to Earth in 2030s which is not far off. Chances of collision cannot be ruled out.

A major disaster can occur on any fine day. If mother nature decides to blow-up on us anytime soon, it will. Fossil fuel industry is almost a non-factor.

Not excusing our responsibility here. Just stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The issue isn't "Stop using fossil fuels this instant!" It's "Find a reliable alternative ASAP!" And if we can't do that soon enough, then we'll need to slash our energy usage until we can find a replacement. I've sequenced the issue in an easy to understand way:

1.) We can't stop using fossil fuels until we can replace them fully. And:
2.) If we don't stop using them (or keep using them until they're all gone) then we'll wreck the planet as a habitable home. So:
3.) So we need to replace fossil fuels with a viable, cleaner, alternative. But:
4.) If we can't create such a replacement soon enough, then in the name of not devastating the planet's biosphere any further, we'll need to cut back on energy usage. Yet:
5.) No one wants to (or realistically can without massively destabilizing the global civilization) cut back on energy usage. So:
6.) Go back to #3, continue from there.

You are thinking through it but the current crop of Democrats? This is the issue. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are at the helm of affairs in the Democrats circles. Not a good sign.

Bill Clinton was smart. I wonder why he is putting up with Hillary.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your concerns over job loss, national debt, budget deficits, and stagnating economies are all very valid, no one who doesn't get offended and contrarian for a living will deny that. But frankly, I'm not interested in solving these relatively small-scale and short-term problems of economy if it means using large-scale and long-terms injuries to the planet's ability to play host to our species to solve them.

Yes, I understand your concern. However, you need to look at Industrial trends and trust their work. They want to make it green but they cannot do that, if stopped. Research cannot happen without adequate funding and people on-board. And people don't work for free.

I read the rest of your post, but after I saw it turn political with Sanders and Clinton popping up again... f*ckssakes...

I'll just say that, regardless of the validity of their stance on fracking (which is not without its own considerable problems, regardless of industry attempts to "make it greener"😉, I prefer my politicians to be concerned about and attempting a solution to climate change, not ignoring it and calling it a hoax.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, I understand your concern. However, you need to look at Industrial trends and trust their work. They want to make it green but they cannot do that, if stopped. Research cannot happen without adequate funding and people on-board. And people don't work for free.

And keep that line of yours about 'adequate funding' in mind for at least the next four years. Here's hoping certain things on the U.S. don't get their budget slashed for the sake of increasing the military spending another $100 billion or so.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
After re-reading his OP, I can't find any acknowledgement that man made climate change is a threat. I can only take that to mean that he believes it doesn't even exist, or that it's insignificant.

Which... yeah, how do you argue with someone like that? "It's a conspiracy!" "It's a hoax!" "Climate scientists are all shills!" And if he's not a conspiracy theorist, then he's willfully avoiding all data and research that shows man-made climate change exists, and is a huge threat to our civilization and the planet's biodiversity.

But don't take ma jerbs.

You can't have an honest argument with people who shield themselves from reason.

Stop the nonsense in this thread.

Emperordmb makes good points and SWLegend is hugely misinformed.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Right.

Look at this:

Notice the percentage of petroleum in use? That is not changing anytime soon. Electric cars are a step in the right direction but they will not replace other cars in 2017.

No problem with promoting alternatives but change should come with planning; not in a haphazard way. If you will stop extracting fossil fuels, you will have to import them from other countries and this is contributing to trade deficit (exports < imports). National debt is climbing as a consequence and cost of energy is increasing. Jobs opportunities are limited and people have to struggle more to pay the bills. Rich (including politicians) are profiting while working classes continue to suffer. The economy will continue to experience periods of recession.

It is really stupid to ignore economics for the sake of appeasing a lobby. Please understand that climate change is inevitable and a part of natural order.

Our fight should be directed towards pollution. But stopping the industry and reliance on imports for domestic energy requirements is not a sustainable goal.

Or you could just invest in LFTR and solve all those problems and many more besides.