- cross-posted to:
- memes@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- memes@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
We need both. Fucking hate binary thinking. It’s a curse.
Maybe, but one seems to get all the attention and little results.
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.
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.
we could also use some responsible disposal rules for plastics to prevent them from ending up in our circulatory systems and oceans.
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?
We already know how to create plastics from CO2 extracted from the air and hydrogen from water. There is no shortage of raw material for plastics. The main question for the industry is cheap plastics and the answer to that has always been cheap oil and gas.
Using proven reserves and current consumption you get to 47 years and things run out. That’s a “within my lifetime” number for many.
Nail on the head! It’s not that we can’t make products from something other than curde oil, it’s just by far the cheapest. To a lot of people the economy is more important than the environment.
We can make plastic out of fucking algae if we wanted. Doctors aren’t going to run out of gloves because a bunch of internet autists decided to blow up a coal plant.
I’d be more worried about the people on O2 and life support who need access to electricity. It’s why I support forcing power companies to switch to renewables so we can transition humanely. Note that holding shotguns to oil execs’ heads to make them sign the paperwork is in no way inhumane :P
So my understanding out of this is that we need a government that takes responsibility and raises taxes on the cheap oil and gas to move the industry in the right direction. And we need a system where politicians aren’t being paid by companies so they make decisions in their favor.
As a last point I’d like to mention that by that time there will be bio fuels and bio plastics. I am hoping that we will move to those within those 47 years.
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.
Say what now
We have plenty of rope with which to hang ourselves.
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.
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.
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.
You’re right, I think. But isn’t that the entire problem ? government collusion with private interests ?
- Fazoo ( @Fazoo@lemmy.ml ) 20•1 year ago
Fossil fuels cause massive environmental damage. Let’s cause some more!
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
At least y’all are being honest now. I was getting tired of being gaslit.
What did you think all of the talk about revolution involved? Radical change isn’t normally achieved through peaceful measures
MLK wouldn’t have been as successful if there wasn’t Malcolm X.
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.
Radical, yes. But as big as an advocate for violence as Malcolm? I admit I haven’t read much on MLK.
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.”
That’s my point. I knew y’all were wannabe terrorists for a while, but everyone kept denying/downplaying it. I now have several highly up voted posts to point at. I’m sure the denial will continue, but this a start.
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?
I’d be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
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.
If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think
I use that time to think about bills classifying intentional obstruction of traffic to be unlawful detention.
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.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
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?
Why not support both?
Giving the general public and the oil companies a common enemy. It’s a bold move, Cotton.
Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.
Gasoline won’t become unavailable. There is too much redundancy built into the production and distribution networks.
What would happen is the price of gasoline would rise, which would further drive electric vehicle adoption.
OP’s approach is infinitely superior to harassing drivers directly.
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.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
Natural gas is a petroleum product.
🤔 Okay, let’s hack the banks, redistribute all of the money electronically and then pay for electric infrastructure ourselves.
GOD I LOVE TERRORISM
Spicy takes are the best takes though, op
You first coward.
So we’re acknowledging that it’s mostly a coordination problem.
I wouldn’t call it a hot take
i guess explosive take fits better
If you think blowing up a pipeline is a good thing because it feels like you’re saving the world, can I blow your head with a gun because I think that without oil people will starve?
See, when you want to use violence, I assure you that you won’t win, especially the simps that support violence for climate nonsense don’t know how to fire a pistol. Let’s be civilized and avoid violence and aggression.
Maybe you should learn how to convince people with your ideas, regardless of how stupid, ridiculous, immoral, uneducated and propagandized they are.
Without doing a moral calculation, what I can say is that shooting people in the head is less effective in dealing with climate change then blowing up oil pipelines.
Blowing up oil pipelines will make it more expensive for oil companies to do business. This will decrease the amount of oil production which will directly effect how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere.
How effective will it be? Will it stop climate change? Those questions are unknowable at this point in time. But it is pretty clear that we’re getting to a point where lots of people are going to start dying due to climate change.
I disagree with you, and I think if we stop using oil hundreds of millions will starve in days.
Do I care what you think? No, I don’t give two shits about your opinion on climate change. I’m done discussing it. However, you’re free to have all the stupid opinions you want. Just don’t use violence because you don’t have a monopoly on it, we all can do it.
I disagree with you
Wait, about what? Are you saying that shooting people in the head is more effective in dealing with climate change that blowing up oil pipelines?
I think if we stop using oil hundreds of millions will starve in days
I agree with this, and I never said we should stop using oil. I think we should definitely use less though. We should try to use as little as possible. We will still need plastics for medical stuff.
Just don’t use violence because you don’t have a monopoly on it, we all can do it.
A lot of people are about to die due to climate change. I think if you want them to not do violence, you had better start convincing them that they have a shot to survive this. Telling them that violence is bad is not going to do it. Honestly, blowing up a few pipes is pretty low price, all things considered. Things have the possibility to get much worse than some property damage.
I would 100% prefer that governments take action to slow down oil production and push hard for more climate friendly policies, but they are not.
The excessive pollution is aggression. More people will die from climate change than from lack of oil, regardless of what you think.
In my opinion, you said a very stupid thing and I don’t care about your opinion. I’m done discussing dumb climate change nonsense. So, as long as you’re not using violence, I don’t give a shit what you think as you’re free to think all the stupid things you want, otherwise, I’ll share the violence you’re causing with you.
You’re already sharing violence, by threatening people who would defend themselves from aggressors.
But since you don’t care, are done discussing this nonsense, and are intellectually honest, I’m sure I won’t see a foolish reply defending that aggression further.
You’re already sharing violence, by threatening people who would defend themselves from aggressors.
Given this level of stupidity that I interpret as “you’re not tolerant because you don’t tolerate my intolerance”, I guess we reached an impasse. And I’m not speaking just for this post, but in real cases where real violence is involved. You mind your own business, and I’ll mind mine, and that’s how peace is maintained. I have zero sympathy for anyone attempting violence then getting killed.
lol no polluters are not just like gay people
Facts don’t care about your feelings
You’re stupid for believing these are facts, so I don’t care.
There’s no believing in that climate change is going to kill significantly more people as it ramps up in the second half of this century; it will regardless of what we believe. Your opinion is the only stupid thing here
You’re brainwashed and dumb. I don’t care what you think. You believe all the nonsense you want, just stay away from us, the people who understand power-grab and how it works. You fuck up your countries as much as you want, and again, stay away from us, and we’ll be laughing when you have no more food.
The moment you use violence, we will too. No more “discussion”. Fuck that. I’m done pretending people like you aren’t retarded. I encourage everyone to treat those retards like this.
🥱
the likelihood of u blowing off op’s head is as high as the likelihood of anyone here blowing up an oil pipeline
Totally agree.
Btw, I prefer chacha20 🙃 … you’re obsolete!
- zbyte64 ( @zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English4•1 year ago
I mean if removing people from the equation is on the table then targeting billionaires with a carbon footprint of small nations would be the logical place to start.
That aside, this meme is calling for collective violent action against infrastructure. Your example is an individual violent action against a person.
Don’t care. Violence will lead to violence.
- zbyte64 ( @zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English3•1 year ago
Does self-defense count as violence? Because forcefully dismantling the oil infrastructure can save lives and it would be nonviolent as long as the police don’t start with their violence.
Killing someone who will blow up oil pipes counts as saving lives too. Without oil people starve and hundreds of millions will die. It’s a matter of perspective.
Violence is wrong. Period.
- zbyte64 ( @zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English1•1 year ago
Does self-defense count as violence? Because forcefully dismantling the oil infrastructure can save lives.
There is an appropriate place for coordinated political violence and it’s absolutely never, officer ;)
Sir, this is !memes@lemmy.ml
Yeah, right. Go try to make a joke about blowing up airplanes in the airport then tell me “sorry, I was joking”. We don’t joke about violence without acknowledging it’s wrong.
But stuff like pipeline infrastructure, could be used for transporting hydrogen as ammonia in the future.