CONTEXT
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@kottke/116013120934445460
CONTEXT
the Government Pension Fund of Norway is the largest sovereign-wealth fund in the planet; investing over a real, EU trillion in businesses worldwide.
where did they get the money to start the fund? FROM SURPLUS PETROLEUM & FOSSIL FUEL REVENUES. Norway nationalized key sectors of their economy, starting with oil & gas.
so the Norwegian government uses oil & gas money to rid the country of #petromafia #consumerism thru investments not taxes.
take that, neoliberal capitalists.
@blogdiva they externalise the problems of non-renewables to other countries. still...climate change will come for them regardless
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
bullshit
get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done
of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern
much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction
especially in regards to climate change
that difference matters
of course it's not perfect
as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.
The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda
-
@blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell you should probably watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM
I have already watched it. the trade-off he talks about in terms of costs in CO2 production while he never references the mining and refinement payload that comes with all these renewables.
In order to build out this glorious renewable future we only have to exponentially, expand the destruction of the world, psychologies and sacrifice exponentially more people, and the ecologies they depend on that we all depend on ultimately.
-
I have already watched it. the trade-off he talks about in terms of costs in CO2 production while he never references the mining and refinement payload that comes with all these renewables.
In order to build out this glorious renewable future we only have to exponentially, expand the destruction of the world, psychologies and sacrifice exponentially more people, and the ecologies they depend on that we all depend on ultimately.
Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.
And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.
Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2
-
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.
The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda
@brad @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
no argument
except that this is an orthogonal argument, another topic that you are invoking
which is fine
but it doesn't dispel the point in the top level comment blogdiva is making, nor does it support the argument GhostOnTheHalfShell is making
-
@blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell you should probably watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM
I think people should definitely read 99th Day, because the problem is the level of resource use, and the destructive payload that comes with energy production.
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
bullshit
get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done
of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern
much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction
especially in regards to climate change
that difference matters
of course it's not perfect
as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
bullshit
get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done
of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern
much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction
especially in regards to climate change
that difference matters
of course it's not perfect
as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva there is also the consideration wrt the effects of vehicle exhaust. Unless the power plants are coal, that's a straight up win for the carbon cycle.
Of course the batteries have rare chemicals and extractive companies still come into play. But they are there for vehicles regardless.
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
bullshit
get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done
of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern
much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction
especially in regards to climate change
that difference matters
of course it's not perfect
as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person
I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..
Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.
In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.
-
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.
The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda
And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.
The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.
The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.
The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality
-
I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..
Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.
In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
-
And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.
The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.
The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.
The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva
so go do that
i support your agenda
why must you attack another agenda that is also good?
applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels
*and* work on your agenda
you can do both, because both are good things
positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie
-
Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.
And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.
Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2
For instance, in order for China to produce those incredibly inexpensive, solar panels, they’ve caused enormous tracks of old growth forest in Southeast Asia to be cut down.
Question becomes how many brown people and how much of the world’s ecologies are you happy to obliterate as a sacrifice zone, to keep using as much energy as we do. In order to build this so-called renewable future exponentially more life has to be exterminated.
-
I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..
Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.
In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva good bet the very next proposed strategy is a eugenicist purge of half the world's latitudes
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
And when I am saying is the trade-off between one versus the other, has been the product of greenwashing.
Renewables destroy the planet in their manufacture.
And all you or I or the rest of society is doing is continuing to butcher down the planet while we’re being told we are saving it.
This is not an argument of the perfect being the enemy of the good, this is the argument that the alternative is not what it’s been sold as, and the only real solution is reduction
-
And when I am saying is the trade-off between one versus the other, has been the product of greenwashing.
Renewables destroy the planet in their manufacture.
And all you or I or the rest of society is doing is continuing to butcher down the planet while we’re being told we are saving it.
This is not an argument of the perfect being the enemy of the good, this is the argument that the alternative is not what it’s been sold as, and the only real solution is reduction
@benroyce @blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell just to note, your take's logical conclusion is nihilism. If humanity didn't exist there wouldn't be any footprint. If the universe didn't exist there wouldn't be any problems. but that's just not how it works.
by all means, reuse, reduce, recycle. But it has been widely disproven that e.g electric cars "are not worth it", or that solar panels have a limited lifespan. That's propaganda from the fossil fuel industry that defeats your own point if anything
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva
so go do that
i support your agenda
why must you attack another agenda that is also good?
applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels
*and* work on your agenda
you can do both, because both are good things
positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie
OK, it’s only a lie. If what you’ve been told about renewables is true.. let me emphasize that the companies who were gushing over renewables are the worst polluting most environmentally destructive industries in the world which is the mining sector.
You are going to believe companies that are no different than big oil and no different than big tobacco at face value value.
How well has that traditionally worked out?
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
-
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
Take, for example, hydroelectric power. When you damn a river, it becomes a source of methane production… and in the end, if you cost everything out that hydroelectric power is generating twice as much carbon per kilowatt hour is a freaking cold plant.
Again, I emphasize, if you slap a label of green on hydroelectric because it doesn’t burn fossil fuels, but ends up doing more damage what exactly have we gained?
-
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva Providing one is of reasonable fitness, a simple bicycle gives one a great degree of freedom. My mum lives 3 miles away, and I can get there in 10 minutes.
