Country that sells oil tells everyone to stop talking about the problems with selling oil.
Details at 11.
Everything that we do has an impact on the environment. We need to choose the options that have the least impact which is not oil.
Will nobody rid me of this turbulent oligarch
"What happens when the windmills suck up all the wind and the solar panels all the sunshine?"
well, we can keep the wind blowing by feeding every one beans, onions and brocoli. and for the lactose intolerant... dairy.
"Natural Gas"
Fine fine but that's just half the question, we still need a solution for the sunshine thing
Lightbulbs, but you already knew that
I dunno, I think it's certainly possible that intentionally adding resistance to wind could cause unforeseen effects on high and low pressure systems. It's something that should be studied and understood not immediately dismissed, that's how we ended up in this situation with petrochemicals
It has been studied though.
The desperate pleas of a king who lost his crown.
The writing's on the wall bro. Why don't you just do what the U.S. oil giants are doing and take that $ and invest in renewables and the future?
Because! He OWNS economies! Why should he have to make gobs of money in a different way when he is making more money than God now? Unfair I tell you! No science!
When people say things like this we should be allowed to set them on fire.
Bad for the climate though.
Nah it’s a net win.
but much less so than oil. sucks for counties that have less than zero exports other than oil
And breathing has a non-zero chance of causing death.
What a bunch of horse shit lol
Doesn't oil industry infrastructure also have a huge carbon footprint? Seems like putting the cart way before the horse.
The points they're making are not wrong. We should be paying attention to the lifecycle emissions of green energy facilities (that isn't the same thing as not building those facilities). And we should be putting more resources into development of direct CO2 capture; the argument raised in the article, that CO2 capture is bad because it will draw attention from the green transition, is laughably stupid.
It's not so much that carbon capture will draw attention from the transition, it's that the transition will be blocked by the desire $$$ from greedy fucks don't give a shit about any transition whatsoever:
"Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said Monday that the country would oppose any COP28 text that calls for reducing global fossil fuel consumption."
This isn't some qualified plan to offset emissions with carbon capture, it's a qualified plan to continue as is while throwing shade on renewables and continuing to throw some pocket change at unicorn tech like carbon capture that has seen virtually no advancement in the 20 years it's been touted so that people feel like we'll eventually have some magical fix for all the problems we've created.
This isn’t some qualified plan to offset emissions with carbon capture, it’s a qualified plan to continue as is while throwing shade on renewables and continuing to throw some pocket change at unicorn tech like carbon capture that has seen virtually no advancement in the 20 years it’s been touted so that people feel like we’ll eventually have some magical fix for all the problems we’ve created.
saying it again, louder, for the people in the back. this guy's entire job is to sell oil. if tossing pocket change to some random tech that sounds fancy is gonna let him sell more oil... he's going to do it.
And we should be putting more resources into development of direct CO2 capture.
We already have working systems for that, they are called trees and phytoplankton.
Trees and phytoplankton keep the carbon around.
Cut the tress and place in abandoned mine.
Carbon removed from cycle and it works now.
Conducting a never-ending program of global mass deforestation has other environmental costs.
If we could somehow pull the carbon out of the atmosphere, bind it up into a solid rock, and bury it deep underground away from bacteria and fungi that would metabolise it back into the air that would be really good.
In the mean time we should focus on not digging up exactly that aka coal.
Imagine if instead of buying it underground we could instead use it to build useful things like housing...
Sweet baby Jesus! We just invented trees!
trees don't fix carbon long term because they eventually rot. Coal/oil are the only natural ways in sizeable quantities and because organisms that can digest shit exist now.
Wood frame buildings are standing for hundreds of years, some of it might need to get replaced every now and then but if a couple of 2x4 last 70 years and it takes 50 to grow a tree that provides us with more than the number that needs to get replaced, it's a net positive.
you have to consider the steady state case.
What? You think we would reach a point where we don't need all that wood anymore or where we only manage to grow what we need to replace?
By the time that happens I'm pretty sure fusion will be our main mean of energy production and climate change will be a long forgotten issue.
We've deforested about a third of the land that used to be forest 10 000 years ago, about 20% of the world's habitable land!
https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests
We don't replant about 5 million hectares every year!
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
We're trying to reinvent the wheel because we can't see the solution that's right in front of us.
yeah and uhhh how much of that wood is still around. A lot of the carbon is in the atmosphere which is part of the problem.
I don't think you quite comprehend how much we've dug up. Reforestation isn't a bad thing but it wouldn't put a dent in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
So you missed the point entirely... Oh well, I tried.
Ok bye!
Why can't we just turn them into charcoal and bury it?
Good question. The answer technically is maybe! however a few caveats.
Charcoal washes away into the ocean where it mysteriously disappears https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419160715.htm it seems to enter the carbon cycle rather than get fixed. So maybe we could prevent that if we buried it very deep and sealed it in. Remember we are looking for a centuries long solution.
In practice: charcoal compacted has a density of like 1.5 g/cm3 coal is about 1.8. They're both mostly carbon, we would need to bury a loooot of charcoal. We have dug up and burned tens of billions of tonnes, that is a lot of charcoal to bury and not just in the sort of open cut surface mines coal is usually excavated from.
Further making charcoal costs energy, even if you fuel it with the wood you're processing. It's a staggeringly expensive prospect to make billions of tonnes. There are around 280 billion tonnes of carbon that need fixing, that is just atmospheric. Significant portions are dissolved in the ocean and would start to come out as we reduced atmospheric carbon.
Carbon fixation is an unimaginably large project, we would need cheap fusion and decades to make it practical. Essentially you want to reverse the energy consumption of everyone on earth for the last 200 years, it just isn't realistic.
For the few thousands of years we're pretty much stuck with whatever we emit. Barring massive technological changes that are unforseeable
I mean, all life on Earth is basically carbon based and that's how oil formed in the first place, organic matter burried deep and left there for a very long time. We'd just have to find a way to put organic matter in the places we extract oil from now.
Living things already pull carbon out of the atmosphere (via plants, for instance - plants pull carbon from the air and nitrogen from the soil, and along with water build up all manner of sugars and proteins. animals then eat those and they become the building blocks for the animal's body). They also put some back as byproducts of metabolism - CO2 for higher organisms, methane for some bacteria. Living things just go through a cycle and none of the carbon remains locked away, as it was in the case of oil deposits. All that oil was at some point huge hunks of living, breathing, eating, multiplying beings. So we wouldn't actually need to form it into a solid rock before disposing of it.
I don't know, maybe we can just dig an extremely deep pit and shove all our organic waste down there. Or make some very sturdy concrete tombs (similar to nuclear waste, minus the lead) and just seal it all away, but it'd have to be completely sealed so as not to seep into the environment around it. Or deep enough so that it won't contaminate groundwater if it does.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/