Remember that bullshit about "peak oil"

[jaF0]

I've postulated that many times over. Mom needs to clean house, beginning with us. All of us.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Eventually, the planet will die and take all life as we know it with it and house cats are not going to develop the technology to get us off planet; they're just going to die because it's all they can do unless they become like us after a couple-three hundred thousand years of evolution and the eventual reinvention of the wheel...

 

[Que]

We should, then, exterminate humanity?

. . .if a tree falls in the forest.

Gaia is a rock. If there were no humans on the planet it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever what happens in the future to the planet. Who cares which animals (if any) do or don't live on a planet that humans do not inhabit?

Earth doesn't care at all who rides its crust. Earth doesn't breath; it doesn't care what the atmosphere is like.

Humankind will go extinct at some point in the future. Earth will not miss us.

 

[trysail]

Humanity is the single most destructive parasite Earth has ever suffered.

I've postulated that many times over. Mom needs to clean house, beginning with us. All of us.

That's some pretty serious self-hatred ya got there fella.

You probably ought to think about getting some professional help.

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

. . .if a tree falls in the forest.

Gaia is a rock.

No. Gaia hypothesis.

 

[Que]

A fair point. Gaia, absent humans, is an unimportant rock.

Without humans to mythologize her, she is not a her she's just a rock with various organisms tenuously clinging to "her"

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The operating principle is to leave as much in the ground as we possibly can.

 

[Que]

The operating principle is to leave as much in the ground as we possibly can.

Why?

.​

 

[trysail]

The operating principle is to leave as much in the ground as we possibly can.

That would be colossally stupid.


How many people do you intend to impoverish or condemn to lives of a marginal existence and subsistence agriculture ?

How many lives do you intend to shorten due to illnesses arising from cooking with wood ?

How many forests do you intend to cut down for firewood ?



​

 

[von_Bismarck]

With the price of new renewable energy plus storage getting to be less than the price of operating existing coal plants, there's hardly any benefit to digging up hydrocarbon fuel (aside from, maybe, preserving obsolete jobs rather than making the effort to retrain). On the other hand, there are measurable and meaningful costs - externalities - associated with burning hydrocarbon fuel.

 

[von_Bismarck]

That would be colossally stupid.


How many people do you intend to impoverish or condemn to lives of a marginal existence and subsistence agriculture ?

How many lives do you intend to shorten due to illnesses arising from cooking with wood ?

How many forests do you intend to cut down for firewood ?



​

^ Dumbass.

 

[Que]

Speaking of not just colossally stupid, but intellectually inconsistent...

If leaving it in the ground was the goal, you would enact policies that would necessarily make fossil fuels much more expensive in order to fulfill the messianic promises:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvqORJpKxU (skip ahead to 4:48)

He goes on to, according to the economic genius and energy sector analyst RDS, enact policies that resulted in cheap and abundant gasoline. I'm not sure what those policies that led to that result were but he obviously deserves credit for low gas prices and of course blame for getting all of that oil out of the ground. RdS wouldn't lie about a thing like that, would he?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1131411

 

[sircumvent]

Best plan for combating climate change is to leave it in the ground.

Do you own a car or travel by plane?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Speaking of not just colossally stupid, but intellectually inconsistent...

If leaving it in the ground was the goal, you would enact policies that would necessarily make fossil fuels much more expensive in order to fulfill the messianic promises:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvqORJpKxU (skip ahead to 4:48)

He goes on to, according to the economic genius and energy sector analyst RDS, enact policies that resulted in cheap and abundant gasoline. I'm not sure what those policies that led to that result were but he obviously deserves credit for low gas prices and of course blame for getting all of that oil out of the ground. RdS wouldn't lie about a thing like that, would he?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1131411

Are you having a seizure?

 

[jaF0]

The operating principle is to leave as much in the ground as we possibly can.

That should not include us. Cemetaries are an immense waste of ground.

 

[Hal9000_]

New Electric Cadillac:

https://media.cadillac.com/media/us...ges/news/us/en/2019/jan/0114-cadillac-ev.html

https://d2t6ms4cjod3h9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/elmiraj.jpg

 

[trysail]

Psuedo-Renewable Energy

by Paul Dreisen

"...To put it simply, so that even Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [and the economic, scientific illiterates and innumerates who infest Lit] can understand this energy reality: The wind and sun may be free, green, renewable and sustainable. But the energy, land and materials required to harness and utilize that energy certainly are not.

Wind and solar systems also break down faster and must be replaced earlier and more often than coal, gas or nuclear power plants – which have operational life spans of 30-50 years, and generate power about 95% of the time. Wind energy proponents claim turbines last half that long: 20-25 years. They don’t.

A 2018 UK analysis of 3,000 onshore wind turbines found that they generate electricity efficiently for just 12-15 years (and maybe 25-30% of the time) – generating more than twice as much electricity in their first year than when they are barely 15 years old . So wind turbine raw materials depletion and land use impacts are far higher than advocates have admitted. These realities are no better for solar installations. All of this also means the cost of wind and solar electricity is far higher than their advocates admit. Those costs may be partially hidden by taxpayer subsidies. But they are real, and punitive.

Electricity prices in US states that rely heavily on coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric generation hover around 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. In California, Connecticut, New York and other states that oppose these sources and impose hefty “green” energy mandates and feed-in tariffs, prices are almost twice as high. In Germany and Denmark, families must pay four times as much: 35-37 cents per kWh!..."

more...

​

​

 

[DeluxAuto]

Psuedo-Renewable Energy

by Paul Dreisen

"...To put it simply, so that even Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [and the economic, scientific illiterates and innumerates who infest Lit] can understand this energy reality: The wind and sun may be free, green, renewable and sustainable. But the energy, land and materials required to harness and utilize that energy certainly are not.

Wind and solar systems also break down faster and must be replaced earlier and more often than coal, gas or nuclear power plants – which have operational life spans of 30-50 years, and generate power about 95% of the time. Wind energy proponents claim turbines last half that long: 20-25 years. They don’t.

A 2018 UK analysis of 3,000 onshore wind turbines found that they generate electricity efficiently for just 12-15 years (and maybe 25-30% of the time) – generating more than twice as much electricity in their first year than when they are barely 15 years old . So wind turbine raw materials depletion and land use impacts are far higher than advocates have admitted. These realities are no better for solar installations. All of this also means the cost of wind and solar electricity is far higher than their advocates admit. Those costs may be partially hidden by taxpayer subsidies. But they are real, and punitive.

Electricity prices in US states that rely heavily on coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric generation hover around 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. In California, Connecticut, New York and other states that oppose these sources and impose hefty “green” energy mandates and feed-in tariffs, prices are almost twice as high. In Germany and Denmark, families must pay four times as much: 35-37 cents per kWh!..."

more...

​

​

Until you are truthful, no one is going to read you with any sort of confidence.

 

[Peregrinator]

How many lives do you intend to shorten due to illnesses arising from cooking with wood ?




​

Bwahahahaha!

You really are impenetrable by science, on this topic anyway.

Fossil fuel emissions illnesses

Google is well, it's most people's friend. You appear to hate it.

 

[trysail]

Bwahahahaha!

You really are impenetrable by science, on this topic anyway.

Fossil fuel emissions illnesses

Google is well, it's most people's friend. You appear to hate it.

The 1+ billion people still without electricity, or who are still using wood and dung for heating and cooking, would see things differently, too.


I thought you were an experienced world traveler. Obviously, I was wrong. Wood stove cooking is widespread— and it shortens millions of lives. I thought any educated person would know that.

Why don't you check the Gates Foundation's (and others) efforts to reduce wood stove cooking.


​

 

[Peregrinator]

The 1+ billion people still without electricity, or who are still using wood and dung for heating and cooking, would see things differently, too.


I thought you were an experienced world traveler. Obviously, I was wrong. Wood stove cooking is widespread— and it shortens millions of lives. I thought any educated person would know that.

Why don't you check the Gates Foundation's (and others) efforts to reduce wood stove cooking.


​

You're not very good at this, are ya?

If you can prove without a doubt that woodfires are bad for people, you will still have failed to prove that fossil fuels are not bad for people.

Your argument is lunchmeat, and anyone with half a brain knows it. You've always made ridiculously specious arguments in favor of oil. Most other stuff, you make some sense.

 

[Peregrinator]

According to a study published by MIT, air pollution from power generation causes 52,000 premature deaths per year and a study published by NYU revealed that the health costs associated with premature births from fossil fuel emissions add up to nearly $5 billion. A study published in the journal Science Advances of over 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania over nearly a decade found that women who lived within two miles of a fracking site were more likely to give birth to low-weight babies. Furthermore, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data shows that workers employed in mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction are nearly four times as likely to incur fatal and severe injuries than the average worker in the U.S.

https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/health/the-localized-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels/

 

[Hal9000_]

People without electricity are going to suddenly get propane or natural gas?

I don't see how curbing carbon emissions is going to affect them.

 

[Wok]

https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/health/the-localized-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels/

Fossil fuel is renewable. Why do you hate America so much?

 

[Peregrinator]

Fossil fuel is renewable. Why do you hate America so much?

PEAK WOK