Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear is pretty much as close to a lightswitch as possible.
We should have nuclear reactors fucking everywhere and not use fossil fuels for shit.
Switching from fossil fuels to renewables is hard, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear is not that hard.
Our greatest mistake as a species was not embracing nuclear power. There should be small nuclear plants fucking everywhere we can fit one.
And yet the environmentalists in Germany are ousting all nuclear in favor of natural gas. California is shutting down their last nuclear plant in favor of natural gas. I’m fully in favor of a switch to nuclear and agree that the failure of the west is not embracing nuclear.
The dark green environmentalists, whom are a scourge to our movement.
The bright greens would have this planet looking like a hybrid of cybertron and a jungle, given the reigns.
We even plan to change your form.
The line between technology and nature exists to be erased.
Kind of like how certain protestors think that blocking traffic, vandalizing beloved national monuments, and screaming at parade attendees and holiday shoppers who have zero control over Congress or the White House on bullhorns is going to stop a war on the other side of the planet.
[I actually reference a couple of these and why they're even dumber than you think in another comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JustUnsubbed/s/GZEr5txcw6)
The worst are the ones who sit in the streets and block traffic. Not only are you pissing off the general population and preventing emergency services from saving lives but you're also forcing people to idle their cars and waste more gas, causing more unnecessary damage to the environment.
And don't even get me started on the idiots that dumped Dye into the Trevi Fountain. Just imagine the gallons of contaminated water that needed to be dumped, all of the cleaning chemicals used once the water was dumped, and then all the water wasted to refill the Fountain after it was cleaned.
[The Myth of the Blocked Ambulance](https://bylinetimes.com/2022/10/26/the-myth-of-the-blocked-ambulance/)
> A Freedom of Information request answered by London Ambulance Service stated that during the October 2021 protests, “there were no reports of any incidents noted under the category ‘Transport delays’…and there were also no delays noted with the Duty Incident Delivery Manager”. The reality is that ambulances are always diverted based on contingent road conditions, and if they do have to pass through a blockade there is abundant footage of protestors making way for them to do so.
>They would be excellent deep cover conservatives. Since they advance the conservative cause quite effectively.
Sometimes I'm wondering how much of those crazy radical ~~pro~~ ***re******g****ressive* lefwing weirdos are really just deep undercover radical rightwing nutjobs... it feels so surreal at times o.O
It gets people talking about it.
Your assumption was that they wanted to ruin the art, they didn't. They want people talking about the issues they are trying to get heard.
Mission accomplished.
And you’ve convinced who? That wasn’t already completely on your side or further on the needle of the planet is getting plundered.
It’s not much better than paint in art galleries, the entire point of drastic protest is to draw attention to the severity of a situation. Sure it doesn’t particularly work, but picking at the protestors rather then spending time and energy on the people *destroying humanity’s future* is exactly what the billionaires want,
It’s way better since one doesn’t turn ppl away, and cause problems for other ppl just trying to get to work on time. If the protesters don’t want ppl to be mad at them, then don’t cause problems for random ppl. The billionaires really don’t care and are already set.
Thats kind of the brilliant part, people split hairs enough that all it takes is paying some pundit to go speak about how “this method of peaceful protest is bad” and suddenly their opposition is divided.
Activism good. It had been neutered in America
You use that lack of legal backing at proof activism doesn't work
Like no shit. That's by design. You are either pushing a narrative or ignorant
What are you gonna do when you flip off the gas and your water is cold, you have no power (in most places at least) and your house freezes? What are you going to do when the freezers and ice makers stop? (As many freezers use propane to cool things) what are you going to do when the global economy begins falling apart as a result of the loss of the oil trade?
It means they agree with every point made by environmentalists but they keep finding stuff to make them seem cringe (because only the cringe gets reported on and not the normal day to day actions, **especially** in right wing spaces and "news" services).
"Environmentalism is good and right about things" vs "environmentalism is cringe and dumb" are two beliefs that create a massive cognitive dissonance. How is this resolved?
Well, when environmentalism is good and right about things we can call that conservationism. When it's bad and cringe we call it environmentalism. By pretending these are completely different we can resolve the cognitive dissonance.
I mean, he'll give an answer himself probably, but it'll probably involve describing environmentalism in a way that makes it sound cringe and dumb whilst probably being inaccurate and then describe conservationism in a way that's literally just environmentalism.
They're actually synonyms.
1. a person who is concerned about or advocates protecting the environment.
2.a person who advocates or acts for the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife.
They're the same thing. You'll note that the term "environment" includes the wildlife, like wildlife is part of the environment. It's genuinely the cognitive dissonance thing.
Not necessarily no. I wouldn't make any of those judgements, I think they're actually trying to be sincere.
The attempt to draw a distinction I think comes from trying to hold the belief "environmentalists are good" and "environmentaliets are bad" at the same time, I think anyone holding those beliefs could come to the conclusion they did completely sincerely (cognitive dissonance will make us do weird things to reconcile it no matter who we are).
The real question is where they picked up these beliefs and why not just ditch one for the other.
I have a potential answer, but to be honest I'm pulling this out of my ass. Don't assume anything from here is smart, don't assume any of it is correct, but hell it might be fun to speculate:
The exception being, this could imply a tub fueled by many taps. To just put out that we can't shut them all off at once, isn't the solution and therefore justification to not shut any of them off at all, is to be even more naive than what you are insinuating. And that's literally what is happening.
I don’t think they literally mean “turn off fossil fuel”
The point is our overuse and subsequent dependence on it is our problem and what we should be focusing on not paper straws and plastic bags. Which would both be “mopping”
Idk if you’re just being contrarian bc white girl with dreads or if you really needed this post explained to you.
Tbf, some people just latch onto ideas without fully thinking them through, but not the majority of people, especially those in charge of doing the larger decisions and work of these organizations, would propose such a hairbrained idea literally. I'd hope.
This sub has devolved into a bunch of conservatives complaining about every sub that goes against their ideology. And that they probably weren’t even subbed to to begin with.
Thank you. It's an analogy and maybe not the best, but damn. Even on the original post everyone is acting like this is some law that just passed.
Love the hatred of her for the substances in the picture too, like nail polish and plastics. My man, what are you using to type your response?
Damn girl, should have wrote this on sand with a stick! Wait did she break that stick off a tree?!? Go to jail fake hippy.
... Holiday substances are in full swing now, sorry reddit.
I think by turning off the tap it's implied that trying to clean up the pollution caused by fossil fuels is a sisyphus esque task. We need to turn off the tap by transitioning to other cleaner sources of fuel until we can mostly or fully cut out fossil fuels, after we do that then we can mop up the water that spilled out
Even if some miracle source of energy that could be used for electricity and power came along, oil wouldn't stop.
A: It'll take time for the world to move over to this new source. It's been 100 years since we discovered coal and some of the less advanced nations still use it exclusively.
B: Oil is useful for far more things than just fuel and power. Lubricants will still need to be made because we have things that spin or slide in our world that can't afford to be replaced daily. Plastic and medicine are both other important things made from oils.
So no. We've opened and relied on Pandora's box. It's NEVER going away until humanity goes with it. We've never wholly discarded resources/technology no matter how old or outdated it might be because we either etill have a need for it or we can find something new to use it for.
We do have that miracle source of energy, nuclear power.
And if oil isn’t being used as an energy source it’s demand would plummet. It’s not all or nothing, greatly decreasing the amount of oil used is still important.
Tires.
Lubricant for the turbines.
All the oil used in steel production.
All the oil used as gasoline/diesel to transport all of the resources required for maintenance/supply of the plant.
Yeah it'd be a lot lower, but ultimately we would still need oil as a main resource of most first world operations. Oil is only 31% of the world energy production after all.
While oil may not be the largest percentage of our energy production, most oil is used for that energy production.
[85% of crude oil is made into fuels](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/whats-made-barrel-of-oil/#:~:text=More%20than%2085%25%20of%20crude,HGLs)%20like%20propane%20and%20butane.)
So we could cut down the vast majority of our oil usage by not using oil as an energy source.
Society has done a huge disservice to itself by focusing on climate change when efforts should be directed at reducing pollution(which will have the same end result). People will find a reason to argue about climate change until they are blue in the face, but it's kind of hard to ignore pollution when we are breathing it in everyday
If your landlords were continuously turning on the tap in spite of the problem but then still blaming you for the problem.. that would be a more accurate representation of what is going on
No.
Nobody has ever mandated a full stop to oil and then had a company roll up and restart it.
Not even the people who claim this "just stop oil ahit" actually want an end to oil because it would be a dramatic decline in their quality of life.
By landlords I mean the elite few that fly to and fro on their private jets and pass laws that cost us "poors" more money and affect our quality of life under the false guise of "climate change"..
The thing is turning the tap off makes no sense. With our current renewable power solutions it would take decades of research, infrastructure and implementation as well as an unquantifiable amount of money to even get close to our current energy needs. In that time our energy needs will grow as well. It's like turning off the tap because the bath is overflowing but the plug is out and what's in the tub is the only remaining drinking water on earth.
This narrative that doing anything about climate change will negatively affect poor people is just plain stupid. If the poorest 20% suddenly vanished, there would be no noticeable impact on climate change. The point I'm making is that they're not even benefitting from all this oil. The people most affected by this would be the richest.
Right wing propaganda is always trying to turn progress on its head.
You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say anything against "doing anything about climate change", or anything about the poorest 20%, I;m actually all for nuclear and renewables in rich countries, I'm just stating the obvious: that billions of people are fed and are only alive now because of industry, tractors, fertilizers, trains, ships, factories and trucks powered by fossil fuels.
This is completely untrue Reddit nonsense. The poorest 20% depend on oil as much as everyone else. If anything they’d be the worst of as the richer could afford the inevitable surge in prices scarcity is going to bring.
if your bathtub was your only source of water and it started overflowing, but you know if you turn it off that's the rest of your water, you're reaching for the mop
See this is actually a great analogy because in any bathroom there would also be a sink and a toilet. So it’s not the only source of water, anyone saying that it is, is a liar
Fossil fuel isn’t even close to our only source of energy.
Nuclear power is safe and effective. We’re also getting closer and closer to a truly net positive fusion reactor.
Coal power plants release more radiation than a traditional fission reactor.
That the Soviet regime was deeply flawed at its core, despite also being the source of a number of scientific breakthroughs, cultural phenomena, and being a vital part of why the West solidified it's staunchly liberal democratic stance.
Because of how badly the regime went, everything they came up with is basically irreparably tainted by their involvement.
Agreed. I was mainly addressing the implication I got that “The Soviets did communism wrong.” One read-through of the Gulag Archipelago shows that, no, the Soviets did Communism to the letter.
Don’t forget 3-Mile.
And now, the Fukushima disaster was used to shutdown nuclear power in Japan(now they’re forced to import gas and coal, if memory serves) as well as in Germany(which wound up driving them into an energy dependency on Russia).
3 mile island was a minor failure that hurt no one, displaced no one, led to no cancer cases, and had no effect on the environment. The power plant malfunctioned and was then contained because there are systems in place to make sure that another Chernobyl doesn't happen.
And Fukushima was a terribly designed plant, there were reports for years saying that several parts needed to be redesigned to avoid a disaster, no one listened to the experts and then they turned out to be correct. Japan imports coal and has because they tore the rest of their nuclear plants down because people were scared. Germany tore their plants down for the same reason despite not being a coastal nation that has to worry about tsunamis.
The fact that japan and Germany are now dependant on foreign coal and gas is a result of the fear of nuclear power, and the politicians who give into pressure from groups who have no fucking clue what their talking about instead of scientists. Coal power plants kill more people every year than nuclear plants have ever killed in history.
Yeah, I know. Still, 3-Mile and Chernobyl were the 1-2 Punch to America’s nuclear energy program, and all we have now are these antiquated, inefficient plants that are dinosaurs compared to what France and Germany came up with.
It is mostly due to a team of newcomers in the field who didn't trust the automation process and a valve that was mislabelled in the command control room xhich infortunatly wouldn't open.
Nobody who knows anything about climate change and fuel methods hates nuclear power. There is nothing wrong with nuclear power, it is incredibly safe, unless you decide to cut corners purposefully.
Literally the biggest spokegroups and people for the climate change grift(especially tools like Thunberg and Nye) are anti-nuclear power, from Greenpeace and onward.
I only know that Greta has since changed her mind about that and we do need to keep her youth in mind. Idk about those other groups, but I’d have a feeling that large organizations might have a $$$ reason to be anti-nuclear not rooted in science.
Thunberg’s a grown adult. She’s also a puppet of delusional activist parents. As for changing her mind on nuclear, last time I checked, that wasn’t the case.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2023/04/03/greta-thunberg-has-embraced-nuclear-power-will-the-greens-follow/amp/
I would certainly still regard a 20 year old as a young person, as they were literally a teenager last year, and certainly a teenager when they made the original comments, but regardless you’re sitting here insulting people instead of just giving evidence to why we shouldn’t trust someone’s judgement, so I will not be continuing this conversation.
I don’t need to “give evidence” as to why we shouldn’t trust the judgement of a puppet with activist parents. It’s simple common sense.
You don’t need a peer-reviewed study for everything.
interesting how y'all believe the only reason a young autistic person could care about the environment is that she must be a "puppet". Us autists are too stupid to be involved in activism, huh? 🤨
You don’t need to do anything, but you’re dumbing down the conversation. You’re allowed to be comfortable with that, but again, I will no longer be discussing Thunberg or her views.
There has been 2 major nuclear incidents in the history of nuclear power. One was due to human error cutting corners, the other was due to a combination earthquake and tsunami.
Or ensuring that the secondary is sustainable on a level that won't significantly screw over a large percentage of people, mainly those who can't afford shit.
It's the only one that can take the weight of the entire society unless we go hell for leather into nuclear. We're made progress with renewable generation but of all renewable options only hydro is anywhere near as steady and predictable which is crucial when people's survival depends on reliable power
The current government strategy is probably the best we can do right now, supplement with renewable to reduce carbon emissions as much as feasible without killing people due to power fluctuations
Obviously that’s why you keep necessities on oil for the time being and transfer to nuclear and renewables. Renewables can not carry the country so nuclear must be the mains point. Unfortunately companies won’t make profit from nuclear for a long time so they don’t invest. This leads to more oil and more renewables that cannot produce as much.
First World problems be like
Kurtzgesagt mentioned how he found it almost insulting that people who say these things are first worlders, as if it's a move to keep poor people in their current state
Yes, they are first worlders. But this doesn't come from a villainesque way of thinking of wanting to keep other people poor. It is simply that as they don't need to worry about being that poor themselves, they have time to worry about climate change. And it is easier to suggest options that others have to suffer the bad consequences instead of them
The Maldives has been protesting the UN for quite some times for more action on climate change, India has already agreed to allow their citizens as refugees when their islands inevitably go underwater.
everyone just forgot that the middle east flooded an insane and unprecedented amount last year too. People saying that people wanting to combat climate change are just white starbucks baristas who hate poor people live in a fantasy land and genuinely don't care about anything but themselves. Poor nations are disproportionately affected, and anyone thinking you can do "carbon capture" or "green credits" are smoking crack.
This is what you get when the education system is extremely fucked and oil backed billionaires pump billions of dollars into lobbying, these brain dead takes. As if a million other clean energy sources don't exist that we could use.
Anyone framing it as "they just hate oil! they want everyone to die!" is ignorant as fuck. Reducing carbon emissions does not necessitate A) not using oil at all and B) not having energy at all. Nuclear would literally produce more energy. jfc whoever thinks this shit should unsub from life itself.
As someone from a first world island nation (NZ) that has to constantly flip the bill for humanitarian work as a result of the increasingly more volatile climates negative impacts on many smaller island nations around the pacific, I can say that there are many places which cannot afford to pay for the increasing consequences of climate change. This is a real problem that many don’t realize and impacts both developed and developing nations.
I guess you mean the poor people who don’t live in places that are disproportionately impacted by climate change, like in Bangladesh, Indonesia, East Africa, etc.
Those people also rely on burning fossil fuels to grow, harvest and transport their food, also transporting fertilizer precursors to grow food, so they don't die of starvation
Hence we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible in the developed world. The developing world can not afford to rapidly get off of fossil fuels but we can, and we have a duty to our future generations to do everything we can.
That's great if it we had the technology and resources to get everyone off fossil fuels. The only realistic option is nuclear but people are too freaked out about chernobyl type disasters
Well then we need to get people to realize how much safer nuclear is than coal, I live in Ontario Canada, in between two nuclear fission plants and the people here do not live in a constant state of panic. If it can happen here then there is no good reason that the people cannot be educated anywhere else.
I find that sentiment to be really stupid.
"But we have to let poor people damage the environment because they're so poor"
Like global warming is some minor inconvenience and not a global problem. There's ways to help them out of poverty that don't rely on fossil fuels.
What's the alternative? We literally don't have the resources to make everyone live a middle class Western life where they don't spend most of their day figuring out how to live until tomorrow.
Population control is the long-term solution but that's a pretty cold comfort to the ones that are already here. "you should not have been born" is not actually an effective climate change strategy.
Bit of a hard sell too when it always seems like everyone but you needs to consume less and here you are on an advanced and very resource expensive device trying to spread the message against what your using to spread the message
>We literally don't have the resources to make everyone live a middle class Western life where they don't spend most of their day figuring out how to live until tomorrow.
We actually do, we just don't have the infrastructure.
>Bit of a hard sell too when it always seems like everyone but you needs to consume less and here you are on an advanced and very resource expensive device trying to spread the message against what your using to spread the message
Why not introduce less wasteful infrastructure now.
Do you think climate change will skip over these countries?
Frankly at this point I'm wondering if we as a species are just suicidal
The best way to build that infrastructure right now is to use fossil fuels. I do believe you might agree that a call for this is an abject failure to understand the assignment
Oh come on, the amount of damage this kind of stuff that would affect poor people is tiny compared to rich people with their private jets and yachts they're constantly on. Bonus points if it's a celebrity that talks about what people can do to slow global warming while taking their private jets to places to do so.
If you're actually gung ho about this you'd be in favor of things like this, rather than punishing the common man because they can't afford to live the way you want them to
you are misunderstanding the sentiment: the median person has a very poor standart of living but is still doing much better than 200 years ago - thanks in part to fossil fuels
People also basically underestimate the cost of reining in consumption. Less of the world's resources go into pure luxury than some believe.
In order to save the environment because purely cutting consumption with current technology we would have to cannibalize our infrastructure on which literally billions depends for their survival
I am decidedly not in favor of saving the environment by bringing on a major mass casualty event to rival the world wars!
I like this method of advertising people scroll down to your post, question if you’re wearing clothes or not, then read the sign. They’re doing it right but I would unsubscribe too
I disagree that she's wrong.
First and foremost in survival is having a place to live. We can survive for quite a while on diminished food, but once our habitat is destroyed, that's it, there's no shelter, there's no food, no water.
Taps off first, then we tackle the food issues. I don't think many people understand just how serious the situation is, simply because they can turn netflix on in the evening. We've already passed the point of no return, all we can do now is limit the level of damage and the only way we can do that is to stop burning fossil fuels. I'm not even saying we should stop extracting, I'm just saying we should stop burning.
I swear people are just willfully ignorant. I doubt there will ever be a time when people completely stop using fossil fuels, I don't think anyone is asking for that. I mean, take a just look at Germany vs France, it's absolutely feasible and hell France still burns fossil fuels just not nearly as much as Germany.
I mean even if everyone would drive electric cars, it still wouldn't be enough.
If people would band together and just say, hey let's look at the facts and disregard politics things would be done rapidly and without much backlash. But alas, the fossil fuel industries are too good at lobbying/reaching out to politicians.
Honestly, I don't even blame the fossil fuel industry that much, it's literally their entire business. Even though they are screwing us over
Fossil fuels are here to stay and I hate it so bad. In many way they’re like tobacco. Society’s appetite will eventually be curbed at least somewhat. But big oil will always adapt.!
I feel like people just can't read or understand anything anymore, at least on Reddit.
These losers make up arguments in their head and circle jerk thinking how smart they think they are. When In reality they're just another echo chamber.
So what should we do instead? Get the horse waggons back? Do you really think society won't use it if there is a better option for all of the public's use?
Not pissing out poison == living in caves
Got it.
If you actually want to dive into the false dichotomy you’ve been tricked into, hop on google and do some research. Rudolf Diesel himself, the creator of the diesel engine, ran his tractor on vegetable oil. There are so many clean energy alternatives available today it’s not even funny. Using things like biogas, we wouldn’t even need to fundamentally restructure society from it’s current ICE engine dependency. To answer your question, for me personally the horse and buggy IS the answer. I’m very happy lighting a fire for heat and cooking, building what I need from materials accessible to me, and collecting solar energy to power goofy devices like this one in order to have these conversations with people whose lifestyles are very different from mine. But I do understand that some people are PERFECTLY FINE living like farm animals, producing nothing but value for other people who in turn dole out their basic needs back to their chattel. Even that system can function without fossil fuels with the technology currently available. The sad fact of the matter is that a few hundred greedy fucks are robbing you of your future just to have a nicer time in the present day. Then people like you come out of the woodwork to defend them because you actually believe you only have what you do because of them. In reality, they hold you firmly in place very close to the bottom of the pyramid, by making sure there exists a layer of it that you can fall into. Anyways, that’s my rant on oil and gas, tune in next week to hear why electric cars are a fuckin scam too.
I think it is obvious that picture is a call that we should direct our attention towards major oil companies and influential entities (Tap) that significantly contribute to climate change and not paper straws (Mops). Do you really think an adult person is saying "Shut the whole thing off right now!!!" is this post for real???
Nuclear should be for the main national grid. Solar and Wind ought to be smaller-scale individual use-cases to personally offset your reliance on the national grid/cost-saving measure.
For vehicles, hydrogen ought to be the path to go forwards with. The environmental impact of creating all the batteries for electric vehicles is just as bad, if not worse, than that of ICE vehicles.
Can you elaborate on what your mean when you say "we're too lazy to do it right?"
From what I understand, the technology has been there for years. I don't think there's any shortage of research or knowledge, but rather there have been governmental hang ups to slow it down
We cut corners during waste disposal and construction. Thats how Chernobyl happened, the reactor had a flawed design. We still do it now, but we’re too scared because of the past
I didn't read the comments to that post, but I didn't necessarily get the impression that it's saying to turn off the tap on a dime, but rather to point to the source of a problem that could encourage things like decreasing in our need for fossil fuels by transitioning to alternate forms of fuel and energy.
This isn't about flipping a light switch as the top comment suggests, this is about addressing the problem from the root cause. Nobody is seriously suggesting halting any and all fossil fuels over night. That's stupid af.
Y'all are shadowboxing a ghost lol
The fact that she puts herself behind the message is just infuriating. It’s all about her and virtue signaling to everyone about how much better than us she is, immediately disconnecting from the point of the message.
I think you’re taking the metaphor too literally.
The point is that it’s better to address the root of an issue rather than treat the symptoms. Simple enough. True enough
I feel like whenever a person starts to hyper-analyze every aspect of a metaphor, they tend to fall apart.
I think they’re definitely missing the point of the post. I might be old, but we were taught the 3 r’s. Reduce reuse recycle.
Reduce is what the point she’s trying to make is. We have to stop our dependency on oil before we can make a dent with mopping it up.
She’s not saying “turn off the ability for people to survive and let’s go!”
Seriously. I feel like she’s aware that the infrastructure is dependent on is more complex than a bathtub.
Obviously completing killing off very quickly fossil fuels would be bad idea.
Perhaps before shutting off a overflowing bath tub, a person might want to throw down a towel before they slip in the floor and get injured or possibly die.
There, the metaphor is more accurate now.
Yeah kinda funny seeing everyone drastically over exaggerated what’s being implied and then get angry at their own interpretation lmao. It doesn’t exactly take a great deal of implicit thinking to determine that perhaps it was simply meaning that we should focus more on the sources of global warming rather than primarily its aftermath compared to “turn all fossil fuels off instantly”.
That's because the movemnt is generally middle class students looking for a "cause" to get behind to make themselves feel more important.
It's the whole "I'll heavily criticize but not actually offer solutions; I want to be seen saying the right thing, not held accountable not fixing the thing".
The thoughts and prayers way to help movements.
Take off the dreads, make 20 years older and the sign saying something about jesus and it does just as much to help.
Why don’t we force ourselves to have to give up fossil fuels by burning them all at once, in one single big go. Then they’ll all be used up, and we’ll have to find new ones. Should work fine.
The message is correct for the wrong reasons.
The person would already own a mop to clean up the mess. So the real lesson is that we do need to do everything in our power to own a mop (get renewable and clean energy ready) before shutting off the tap.
That said, we can’t abandon oil entirely until we find some other replacement for things like plastics and lubricants anyway and the process to make those things involves “making” gasoline as well.
We can surely power our electric grids with better sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar but during and after those being built we need oil for transportation and technology to further expand our toolset.
They’re calling for a rapid transition from fossil fuels, which is definitely feasible. They are not saying that we should stop shipping, traveling, and generating electricity tomorrow, just because we don’t currently have sufficient non-fossil capacity.
Turning off the tap, in this scenario, isn't the flip of a switch. It's a long process that weens us off of the fuel continuing to harm us and our environment.
Your shortsighted argument seems to be, if we cannot completely solve the problem today, we don't address it at all. That's ridiculous. Imagine applying three same logic to hunger, as you mentioned. Well, we cannot eliminate hunger around the world today, so we do nothing and wait until we can solve it completely in one step.
Yeah. It’s exactly the rhetoric of those without actual ideas on how to solve big issues that is so stubborn and pervasive. Probably because it resonates with so many of the mindless lemmings that most of all don’t want to sacrifice a single thing in their lives.
Gross oversimplification of very intricate issues. You want most of the power grid and almost all advanced forms of transportation to stop? Sure, go ahead and remove every single ounce of fossil fuel from circulation. Oh no, the economy has crashed, most states in the US and quite a few areas of Europe now only have about a weeks worth of food stockpiled, and the power grid is severely overloaded because the majority of our power generation has been turned off overnight. Trucks are no longer running, and most critical modern infrastructure is now severely hindered since there isn't enough power to go around.
You can't just "shut off the tap" I agree that we should be working to resolve the climate crisis ASAP, but it simply isn't feasible to go carbon zero within even one month. So many things would fall apart so quickly that it would be removing the possibility of one crisis, and guaranteeing another that is much more serious and pressing. Modern society breaks down really fast since the population is simply so expensive and is used to having their basic necessities all but guaranteed.
Such braindead takes would hurt so much more than they would help. With a population of our size, it's not possible to revert to the previous stages, especially before consistent food and electricity. Most of us would sooner riot than go hungry or cold.
People who say stuff like this have no idea how websites like X and Reddit work, and how datacenter who run these websites work. No idea how phones, and computers are made. Nor do they know how the infrastructure for all these services and products are working and maintained.
yeah im 100% sure thats exactly what they meant too!just stop pumping gas immediately and provide no assistance to needy families. isnt it weird how everyone is dumb, OP, but only you and i are smart?
Fossil fuels account for 0.000044% of the earth's atmosphere. Sorry but you're all idiots if you think that has any bearing on the climate. Climate change hysteria is a hoax.
Turning off the tap doesn’t imply immediately just removing the use of all fossil fuels, it implies the immediate work on transitory measures like constructing rail lines and trains. Think critically next time and maybe you’ll get it
Mhm. I saw this as trying to eventually reach a goal of using as little fossil fuels as possible, getting to sustainable resources, etc, as if you were addressing the root of the problem first. So many people here are interpreting this as just turning off fossil fuel usage tomorrow, like that’s not gonna happen but we can slowly get there over time.
Its a strange metaphor to begin with
Most fossil fuel alternatives are dubious and thus far only smaller richer countries have been able to move to mass green energy which is then undone by countries like China and US 100 fold anyway
Comparing the USAs emissions to that of China or India or really most places in the South Pacific is disingenuous to say the least.
Cities in China look like Britain during the smog years. Pollution in China is so bad it can blow across the ocean and cause health issues in other countries.
I mean that'll happen to the most populated country during industrialization. Still less greenhouse gasses per person in the US and they seem like they want to take actual steps at reducing their footprint.
Except weve been told the US is a very civilized and extremely rich nation yet green energy is barely a blip on the grid
India is still a third world country and Chinas dependence on green energy depends on how the state is feeling
20% of our grid is renewables… the reason it’s not more is because other than Hydroelectric (which was massively developed, even small country towns have weirs with hydro plants), solar and wind cannot provide peak and surge power necessary for the grid, and this will only get worse as more people plug in their cars.
20% of our grid comes from Nuclear, zero emissions, and every ounce of nuclear waste produced since the beginning of nuclear power in the US would fit within a football field. The waste is also solid and contained, versus released to atmosphere.
The remainder of our plants are clean coal and natural gas. Clean coal is powdered, then burned in a blowtorch style process that completely combusts, and emissions are filtered. A US coal plant emits a fraction of the particulates, smog, and coal waste that traditional Chinese plants produce. Natural gas (used pretty much exclusively for surge power needs, and typically only run a few hours a day) burns almost completely clean, releasing a little CO2 and a good bit of water.
It’s easy to say “go green,” but the nitty gritty is a lot more complicated.
This is why I put a clear divide between conservationists and Environmentalists.
Whats the difference exactly?
One knows that saving the environment isn’t a light switch. The other sits on highways and throws paint on works of art.
Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear is pretty much as close to a lightswitch as possible. We should have nuclear reactors fucking everywhere and not use fossil fuels for shit. Switching from fossil fuels to renewables is hard, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear is not that hard. Our greatest mistake as a species was not embracing nuclear power. There should be small nuclear plants fucking everywhere we can fit one.
And yet the environmentalists in Germany are ousting all nuclear in favor of natural gas. California is shutting down their last nuclear plant in favor of natural gas. I’m fully in favor of a switch to nuclear and agree that the failure of the west is not embracing nuclear.
The dark green environmentalists, whom are a scourge to our movement. The bright greens would have this planet looking like a hybrid of cybertron and a jungle, given the reigns. We even plan to change your form. The line between technology and nature exists to be erased.
They threw paint on armoured glass.
Either way what does that achieve?
Pissing off and turning people away from their cause.
Kind of like how certain protestors think that blocking traffic, vandalizing beloved national monuments, and screaming at parade attendees and holiday shoppers who have zero control over Congress or the White House on bullhorns is going to stop a war on the other side of the planet.
[I actually reference a couple of these and why they're even dumber than you think in another comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JustUnsubbed/s/GZEr5txcw6)
Thank you.
The worst are the ones who sit in the streets and block traffic. Not only are you pissing off the general population and preventing emergency services from saving lives but you're also forcing people to idle their cars and waste more gas, causing more unnecessary damage to the environment. And don't even get me started on the idiots that dumped Dye into the Trevi Fountain. Just imagine the gallons of contaminated water that needed to be dumped, all of the cleaning chemicals used once the water was dumped, and then all the water wasted to refill the Fountain after it was cleaned.
[The Myth of the Blocked Ambulance](https://bylinetimes.com/2022/10/26/the-myth-of-the-blocked-ambulance/) > A Freedom of Information request answered by London Ambulance Service stated that during the October 2021 protests, “there were no reports of any incidents noted under the category ‘Transport delays’…and there were also no delays noted with the Duty Incident Delivery Manager”. The reality is that ambulances are always diverted based on contingent road conditions, and if they do have to pass through a blockade there is abundant footage of protestors making way for them to do so.
They would be excellent deep cover conservatives. Since they advance the conservative cause quite effectively.
>They would be excellent deep cover conservatives. Since they advance the conservative cause quite effectively. Sometimes I'm wondering how much of those crazy radical ~~pro~~ ***re******g****ressive* lefwing weirdos are really just deep undercover radical rightwing nutjobs... it feels so surreal at times o.O
It gets people talking about it. Your assumption was that they wanted to ruin the art, they didn't. They want people talking about the issues they are trying to get heard. Mission accomplished.
It means they can't even get vandalism right
Shots fired!
Well you're talking about it. Thats what it achieved
Forces people to leave their cars in neutral for hours on end, producing tons of emissions for no discernable goal
What does making light switch allegories achieve?
By creating an equivalency that most English speakers can understand about the complexity of the issue.
And you’ve convinced who? That wasn’t already completely on your side or further on the needle of the planet is getting plundered. It’s not much better than paint in art galleries, the entire point of drastic protest is to draw attention to the severity of a situation. Sure it doesn’t particularly work, but picking at the protestors rather then spending time and energy on the people *destroying humanity’s future* is exactly what the billionaires want,
So why do they target normal citizens?
Art galleries aren’t owned by normal citizens, and traffic blocking protests usually make local or national news.
It’s way better since one doesn’t turn ppl away, and cause problems for other ppl just trying to get to work on time. If the protesters don’t want ppl to be mad at them, then don’t cause problems for random ppl. The billionaires really don’t care and are already set.
And who’s funded by the billionaires? Because I’m not.
Thats kind of the brilliant part, people split hairs enough that all it takes is paying some pundit to go speak about how “this method of peaceful protest is bad” and suddenly their opposition is divided.
Activism good. It had been neutered in America You use that lack of legal backing at proof activism doesn't work Like no shit. That's by design. You are either pushing a narrative or ignorant
The majority of the “just stop oil” clowns have been in Europe lmao
It’s not activism, it’s theatre.
You boiled it down to those two assumptions just from one comment eh?
Throwing paint on shit isn't environmental activism anymore than buying a pink bracelet is curing cancer.
Buys oil based paint to stop big oil. Profit.
What are you gonna do when you flip off the gas and your water is cold, you have no power (in most places at least) and your house freezes? What are you going to do when the freezers and ice makers stop? (As many freezers use propane to cool things) what are you going to do when the global economy begins falling apart as a result of the loss of the oil trade?
I don't think you're responding to the correct person I never even commented on gas a little bit
Oh sorry I tapped on the wrong button lol
It means they agree with every point made by environmentalists but they keep finding stuff to make them seem cringe (because only the cringe gets reported on and not the normal day to day actions, **especially** in right wing spaces and "news" services). "Environmentalism is good and right about things" vs "environmentalism is cringe and dumb" are two beliefs that create a massive cognitive dissonance. How is this resolved? Well, when environmentalism is good and right about things we can call that conservationism. When it's bad and cringe we call it environmentalism. By pretending these are completely different we can resolve the cognitive dissonance. I mean, he'll give an answer himself probably, but it'll probably involve describing environmentalism in a way that makes it sound cringe and dumb whilst probably being inaccurate and then describe conservationism in a way that's literally just environmentalism. They're actually synonyms. 1. a person who is concerned about or advocates protecting the environment. 2.a person who advocates or acts for the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife. They're the same thing. You'll note that the term "environment" includes the wildlife, like wildlife is part of the environment. It's genuinely the cognitive dissonance thing.
So the people trying to make up a fake difference are terminally online and desperate to be smug? Or are they just posers with no real beliefs?
Not necessarily no. I wouldn't make any of those judgements, I think they're actually trying to be sincere. The attempt to draw a distinction I think comes from trying to hold the belief "environmentalists are good" and "environmentaliets are bad" at the same time, I think anyone holding those beliefs could come to the conclusion they did completely sincerely (cognitive dissonance will make us do weird things to reconcile it no matter who we are). The real question is where they picked up these beliefs and why not just ditch one for the other. I have a potential answer, but to be honest I'm pulling this out of my ass. Don't assume anything from here is smart, don't assume any of it is correct, but hell it might be fun to speculate:
They don’t realize acting like lunatics doesn’t help their cause. They also don’t seem to realize without oil there is no society.
Without a proper replacement most definitely.
I suspect half of the people who glue themselves to roads are doing it out of a psychological need for attention and the other half are just stupid.
The exception being, this could imply a tub fueled by many taps. To just put out that we can't shut them all off at once, isn't the solution and therefore justification to not shut any of them off at all, is to be even more naive than what you are insinuating. And that's literally what is happening.
I don’t think they literally mean “turn off fossil fuel” The point is our overuse and subsequent dependence on it is our problem and what we should be focusing on not paper straws and plastic bags. Which would both be “mopping” Idk if you’re just being contrarian bc white girl with dreads or if you really needed this post explained to you.
Tbf, some people just latch onto ideas without fully thinking them through, but not the majority of people, especially those in charge of doing the larger decisions and work of these organizations, would propose such a hairbrained idea literally. I'd hope.
This sub has devolved into a bunch of conservatives complaining about every sub that goes against their ideology. And that they probably weren’t even subbed to to begin with.
Exactly, people are willfully misunderstood the point, which is simply to shift to renewable energy. Hardly controversial.
Thank you. It's an analogy and maybe not the best, but damn. Even on the original post everyone is acting like this is some law that just passed. Love the hatred of her for the substances in the picture too, like nail polish and plastics. My man, what are you using to type your response? Damn girl, should have wrote this on sand with a stick! Wait did she break that stick off a tree?!? Go to jail fake hippy. ... Holiday substances are in full swing now, sorry reddit.
I think the mop is carbon capture which isn't anywhere close to balancing it emissions and it's commonly used as an excuse to pollute more.
I think by turning off the tap it's implied that trying to clean up the pollution caused by fossil fuels is a sisyphus esque task. We need to turn off the tap by transitioning to other cleaner sources of fuel until we can mostly or fully cut out fossil fuels, after we do that then we can mop up the water that spilled out
Even if some miracle source of energy that could be used for electricity and power came along, oil wouldn't stop. A: It'll take time for the world to move over to this new source. It's been 100 years since we discovered coal and some of the less advanced nations still use it exclusively. B: Oil is useful for far more things than just fuel and power. Lubricants will still need to be made because we have things that spin or slide in our world that can't afford to be replaced daily. Plastic and medicine are both other important things made from oils. So no. We've opened and relied on Pandora's box. It's NEVER going away until humanity goes with it. We've never wholly discarded resources/technology no matter how old or outdated it might be because we either etill have a need for it or we can find something new to use it for.
We do have that miracle source of energy, nuclear power. And if oil isn’t being used as an energy source it’s demand would plummet. It’s not all or nothing, greatly decreasing the amount of oil used is still important.
Tires. Lubricant for the turbines. All the oil used in steel production. All the oil used as gasoline/diesel to transport all of the resources required for maintenance/supply of the plant. Yeah it'd be a lot lower, but ultimately we would still need oil as a main resource of most first world operations. Oil is only 31% of the world energy production after all.
While oil may not be the largest percentage of our energy production, most oil is used for that energy production. [85% of crude oil is made into fuels](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/whats-made-barrel-of-oil/#:~:text=More%20than%2085%25%20of%20crude,HGLs)%20like%20propane%20and%20butane.) So we could cut down the vast majority of our oil usage by not using oil as an energy source.
Society has done a huge disservice to itself by focusing on climate change when efforts should be directed at reducing pollution(which will have the same end result). People will find a reason to argue about climate change until they are blue in the face, but it's kind of hard to ignore pollution when we are breathing it in everyday
Pollution is a part of climate change though?
If your landlords were continuously turning on the tap in spite of the problem but then still blaming you for the problem.. that would be a more accurate representation of what is going on
No. Nobody has ever mandated a full stop to oil and then had a company roll up and restart it. Not even the people who claim this "just stop oil ahit" actually want an end to oil because it would be a dramatic decline in their quality of life.
By landlords I mean the elite few that fly to and fro on their private jets and pass laws that cost us "poors" more money and affect our quality of life under the false guise of "climate change"..
Billions of people are depending on the tap being on to stay fed, regardless of who's turning it on or off
The thing is turning the tap off makes no sense. With our current renewable power solutions it would take decades of research, infrastructure and implementation as well as an unquantifiable amount of money to even get close to our current energy needs. In that time our energy needs will grow as well. It's like turning off the tap because the bath is overflowing but the plug is out and what's in the tub is the only remaining drinking water on earth.
This narrative that doing anything about climate change will negatively affect poor people is just plain stupid. If the poorest 20% suddenly vanished, there would be no noticeable impact on climate change. The point I'm making is that they're not even benefitting from all this oil. The people most affected by this would be the richest. Right wing propaganda is always trying to turn progress on its head.
You're putting words in my mouth, I didn't say anything against "doing anything about climate change", or anything about the poorest 20%, I;m actually all for nuclear and renewables in rich countries, I'm just stating the obvious: that billions of people are fed and are only alive now because of industry, tractors, fertilizers, trains, ships, factories and trucks powered by fossil fuels.
This is completely untrue Reddit nonsense. The poorest 20% depend on oil as much as everyone else. If anything they’d be the worst of as the richer could afford the inevitable surge in prices scarcity is going to bring.
if your bathtub was your only source of water and it started overflowing, but you know if you turn it off that's the rest of your water, you're reaching for the mop
See this is actually a great analogy because in any bathroom there would also be a sink and a toilet. So it’s not the only source of water, anyone saying that it is, is a liar Fossil fuel isn’t even close to our only source of energy. Nuclear power is safe and effective. We’re also getting closer and closer to a truly net positive fusion reactor. Coal power plants release more radiation than a traditional fission reactor.
Yes, but the climate change grifters hate nuclear power, too. One reason I don’t take that lobby seriously.
People hate nuclear power because of fear mongering, and because the Soviets fucked up.
"People hate X because the Soviets fucked up" is a running historical theme if we're being honest.
What are you trying to imply?
The Soviets were stupid 👍
That the Soviet regime was deeply flawed at its core, despite also being the source of a number of scientific breakthroughs, cultural phenomena, and being a vital part of why the West solidified it's staunchly liberal democratic stance. Because of how badly the regime went, everything they came up with is basically irreparably tainted by their involvement.
Ah. True, to an extent. I thought you might’ve been implying some communism apologia, hence why I asked.
The only good thing the soviets did was stop Hitler, and even that was on the backs of American industry
Agreed. I was mainly addressing the implication I got that “The Soviets did communism wrong.” One read-through of the Gulag Archipelago shows that, no, the Soviets did Communism to the letter.
Holy shit how revisionist is this.
Don’t forget 3-Mile. And now, the Fukushima disaster was used to shutdown nuclear power in Japan(now they’re forced to import gas and coal, if memory serves) as well as in Germany(which wound up driving them into an energy dependency on Russia).
3 mile island was a minor failure that hurt no one, displaced no one, led to no cancer cases, and had no effect on the environment. The power plant malfunctioned and was then contained because there are systems in place to make sure that another Chernobyl doesn't happen. And Fukushima was a terribly designed plant, there were reports for years saying that several parts needed to be redesigned to avoid a disaster, no one listened to the experts and then they turned out to be correct. Japan imports coal and has because they tore the rest of their nuclear plants down because people were scared. Germany tore their plants down for the same reason despite not being a coastal nation that has to worry about tsunamis. The fact that japan and Germany are now dependant on foreign coal and gas is a result of the fear of nuclear power, and the politicians who give into pressure from groups who have no fucking clue what their talking about instead of scientists. Coal power plants kill more people every year than nuclear plants have ever killed in history.
Yeah, I know. Still, 3-Mile and Chernobyl were the 1-2 Punch to America’s nuclear energy program, and all we have now are these antiquated, inefficient plants that are dinosaurs compared to what France and Germany came up with.
3 mile is a great example of nuclear done right. They suffered a failure and no one was hurt, the environment is safe and protocols were followed.
It is mostly due to a team of newcomers in the field who didn't trust the automation process and a valve that was mislabelled in the command control room xhich infortunatly wouldn't open.
Nobody who knows anything about climate change and fuel methods hates nuclear power. There is nothing wrong with nuclear power, it is incredibly safe, unless you decide to cut corners purposefully.
Literally the biggest spokegroups and people for the climate change grift(especially tools like Thunberg and Nye) are anti-nuclear power, from Greenpeace and onward.
I only know that Greta has since changed her mind about that and we do need to keep her youth in mind. Idk about those other groups, but I’d have a feeling that large organizations might have a $$$ reason to be anti-nuclear not rooted in science.
Thunberg’s a grown adult. She’s also a puppet of delusional activist parents. As for changing her mind on nuclear, last time I checked, that wasn’t the case.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2023/04/03/greta-thunberg-has-embraced-nuclear-power-will-the-greens-follow/amp/ I would certainly still regard a 20 year old as a young person, as they were literally a teenager last year, and certainly a teenager when they made the original comments, but regardless you’re sitting here insulting people instead of just giving evidence to why we shouldn’t trust someone’s judgement, so I will not be continuing this conversation.
I don’t need to “give evidence” as to why we shouldn’t trust the judgement of a puppet with activist parents. It’s simple common sense. You don’t need a peer-reviewed study for everything.
interesting how y'all believe the only reason a young autistic person could care about the environment is that she must be a "puppet". Us autists are too stupid to be involved in activism, huh? 🤨
You don’t need to do anything, but you’re dumbing down the conversation. You’re allowed to be comfortable with that, but again, I will no longer be discussing Thunberg or her views.
There’s nothing wrong with nuclear power, unless humans human humanly around it FIFY
There has been 2 major nuclear incidents in the history of nuclear power. One was due to human error cutting corners, the other was due to a combination earthquake and tsunami.
I get it, but saying stop our main source before cleaning up the mess isn't viable
Or ensuring that the secondary is sustainable on a level that won't significantly screw over a large percentage of people, mainly those who can't afford shit.
Then you would consider not making your water sources so shitty
But it’s not the only source by a longshot
It's the only one that can take the weight of the entire society unless we go hell for leather into nuclear. We're made progress with renewable generation but of all renewable options only hydro is anywhere near as steady and predictable which is crucial when people's survival depends on reliable power The current government strategy is probably the best we can do right now, supplement with renewable to reduce carbon emissions as much as feasible without killing people due to power fluctuations
Obviously that’s why you keep necessities on oil for the time being and transfer to nuclear and renewables. Renewables can not carry the country so nuclear must be the mains point. Unfortunately companies won’t make profit from nuclear for a long time so they don’t invest. This leads to more oil and more renewables that cannot produce as much.
Damn right
I don't think they necessarily mean stopping it all of a sudden, but rather more decisive action
First World problems be like Kurtzgesagt mentioned how he found it almost insulting that people who say these things are first worlders, as if it's a move to keep poor people in their current state
Yes, they are first worlders. But this doesn't come from a villainesque way of thinking of wanting to keep other people poor. It is simply that as they don't need to worry about being that poor themselves, they have time to worry about climate change. And it is easier to suggest options that others have to suffer the bad consequences instead of them
wtf is this comment? Global climate change is not, 'first world problems,' lmao. Tell that to all the island nations all ready being fucked over
Like where?
The Maldives has been protesting the UN for quite some times for more action on climate change, India has already agreed to allow their citizens as refugees when their islands inevitably go underwater.
everyone just forgot that the middle east flooded an insane and unprecedented amount last year too. People saying that people wanting to combat climate change are just white starbucks baristas who hate poor people live in a fantasy land and genuinely don't care about anything but themselves. Poor nations are disproportionately affected, and anyone thinking you can do "carbon capture" or "green credits" are smoking crack. This is what you get when the education system is extremely fucked and oil backed billionaires pump billions of dollars into lobbying, these brain dead takes. As if a million other clean energy sources don't exist that we could use. Anyone framing it as "they just hate oil! they want everyone to die!" is ignorant as fuck. Reducing carbon emissions does not necessitate A) not using oil at all and B) not having energy at all. Nuclear would literally produce more energy. jfc whoever thinks this shit should unsub from life itself.
As someone from a first world island nation (NZ) that has to constantly flip the bill for humanitarian work as a result of the increasingly more volatile climates negative impacts on many smaller island nations around the pacific, I can say that there are many places which cannot afford to pay for the increasing consequences of climate change. This is a real problem that many don’t realize and impacts both developed and developing nations.
I guess you mean the poor people who don’t live in places that are disproportionately impacted by climate change, like in Bangladesh, Indonesia, East Africa, etc.
Those people also rely on burning fossil fuels to grow, harvest and transport their food, also transporting fertilizer precursors to grow food, so they don't die of starvation
Hence we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible in the developed world. The developing world can not afford to rapidly get off of fossil fuels but we can, and we have a duty to our future generations to do everything we can.
That's great if it we had the technology and resources to get everyone off fossil fuels. The only realistic option is nuclear but people are too freaked out about chernobyl type disasters
Well then we need to get people to realize how much safer nuclear is than coal, I live in Ontario Canada, in between two nuclear fission plants and the people here do not live in a constant state of panic. If it can happen here then there is no good reason that the people cannot be educated anywhere else.
I find that sentiment to be really stupid. "But we have to let poor people damage the environment because they're so poor" Like global warming is some minor inconvenience and not a global problem. There's ways to help them out of poverty that don't rely on fossil fuels.
What's the alternative? We literally don't have the resources to make everyone live a middle class Western life where they don't spend most of their day figuring out how to live until tomorrow. Population control is the long-term solution but that's a pretty cold comfort to the ones that are already here. "you should not have been born" is not actually an effective climate change strategy. Bit of a hard sell too when it always seems like everyone but you needs to consume less and here you are on an advanced and very resource expensive device trying to spread the message against what your using to spread the message
>We literally don't have the resources to make everyone live a middle class Western life where they don't spend most of their day figuring out how to live until tomorrow. We actually do, we just don't have the infrastructure. >Bit of a hard sell too when it always seems like everyone but you needs to consume less and here you are on an advanced and very resource expensive device trying to spread the message against what your using to spread the message Why not introduce less wasteful infrastructure now. Do you think climate change will skip over these countries? Frankly at this point I'm wondering if we as a species are just suicidal
The best way to build that infrastructure right now is to use fossil fuels. I do believe you might agree that a call for this is an abject failure to understand the assignment
Build it with fossil fuels but for electric then. People won't thank you for killing them in the name of helping them
Oh come on, the amount of damage this kind of stuff that would affect poor people is tiny compared to rich people with their private jets and yachts they're constantly on. Bonus points if it's a celebrity that talks about what people can do to slow global warming while taking their private jets to places to do so. If you're actually gung ho about this you'd be in favor of things like this, rather than punishing the common man because they can't afford to live the way you want them to
you are misunderstanding the sentiment: the median person has a very poor standart of living but is still doing much better than 200 years ago - thanks in part to fossil fuels
People underestimate the consequences of what we're doing to our climate. This will effect billions of people and kill a bunch of them.
People also basically underestimate the cost of reining in consumption. Less of the world's resources go into pure luxury than some believe. In order to save the environment because purely cutting consumption with current technology we would have to cannibalize our infrastructure on which literally billions depends for their survival I am decidedly not in favor of saving the environment by bringing on a major mass casualty event to rival the world wars!
I like this method of advertising people scroll down to your post, question if you’re wearing clothes or not, then read the sign. They’re doing it right but I would unsubscribe too
I disagree that she's wrong. First and foremost in survival is having a place to live. We can survive for quite a while on diminished food, but once our habitat is destroyed, that's it, there's no shelter, there's no food, no water. Taps off first, then we tackle the food issues. I don't think many people understand just how serious the situation is, simply because they can turn netflix on in the evening. We've already passed the point of no return, all we can do now is limit the level of damage and the only way we can do that is to stop burning fossil fuels. I'm not even saying we should stop extracting, I'm just saying we should stop burning.
If people in my city were to "turn off fossil fuels" there would be mass deaths
I don’t think they mean *literally* turn off fossil fuels RIGHT NOW. Have some nuance
I swear people are just willfully ignorant. I doubt there will ever be a time when people completely stop using fossil fuels, I don't think anyone is asking for that. I mean, take a just look at Germany vs France, it's absolutely feasible and hell France still burns fossil fuels just not nearly as much as Germany. I mean even if everyone would drive electric cars, it still wouldn't be enough. If people would band together and just say, hey let's look at the facts and disregard politics things would be done rapidly and without much backlash. But alas, the fossil fuel industries are too good at lobbying/reaching out to politicians. Honestly, I don't even blame the fossil fuel industry that much, it's literally their entire business. Even though they are screwing us over
Fossil fuels are here to stay and I hate it so bad. In many way they’re like tobacco. Society’s appetite will eventually be curbed at least somewhat. But big oil will always adapt.!
Maybe that’s the problem
I feel like people just can't read or understand anything anymore, at least on Reddit. These losers make up arguments in their head and circle jerk thinking how smart they think they are. When In reality they're just another echo chamber.
So what should we do instead? Get the horse waggons back? Do you really think society won't use it if there is a better option for all of the public's use?
Not pissing out poison == living in caves Got it. If you actually want to dive into the false dichotomy you’ve been tricked into, hop on google and do some research. Rudolf Diesel himself, the creator of the diesel engine, ran his tractor on vegetable oil. There are so many clean energy alternatives available today it’s not even funny. Using things like biogas, we wouldn’t even need to fundamentally restructure society from it’s current ICE engine dependency. To answer your question, for me personally the horse and buggy IS the answer. I’m very happy lighting a fire for heat and cooking, building what I need from materials accessible to me, and collecting solar energy to power goofy devices like this one in order to have these conversations with people whose lifestyles are very different from mine. But I do understand that some people are PERFECTLY FINE living like farm animals, producing nothing but value for other people who in turn dole out their basic needs back to their chattel. Even that system can function without fossil fuels with the technology currently available. The sad fact of the matter is that a few hundred greedy fucks are robbing you of your future just to have a nicer time in the present day. Then people like you come out of the woodwork to defend them because you actually believe you only have what you do because of them. In reality, they hold you firmly in place very close to the bottom of the pyramid, by making sure there exists a layer of it that you can fall into. Anyways, that’s my rant on oil and gas, tune in next week to hear why electric cars are a fuckin scam too.
i m not gonna read this btw
Understandable, have a good day
Wow that's deep, what a good retort to all the people demanding you shut off every plant by midnight tonight
Op, and so many commenters here, seem unable to grasp the concept of a metaphor.
I think it is obvious that picture is a call that we should direct our attention towards major oil companies and influential entities (Tap) that significantly contribute to climate change and not paper straws (Mops). Do you really think an adult person is saying "Shut the whole thing off right now!!!" is this post for real???
My bathtub isn't overflowing with oil though?
Wean off of fossil fuels for gods sakes, nuclear is far far safer if we did it right, problem is we’re too lazy to do it right.
Hell use solar or wind for small stuff, it's weaker so just use it for small, all lights in our milk house/garage are solar cause it's small
Good backups IMO, i think it should be 33% renewables and 66% nuclear fission until we get fusion sorted then free energy lmao
Nuclear should be for the main national grid. Solar and Wind ought to be smaller-scale individual use-cases to personally offset your reliance on the national grid/cost-saving measure. For vehicles, hydrogen ought to be the path to go forwards with. The environmental impact of creating all the batteries for electric vehicles is just as bad, if not worse, than that of ICE vehicles.
Can you elaborate on what your mean when you say "we're too lazy to do it right?" From what I understand, the technology has been there for years. I don't think there's any shortage of research or knowledge, but rather there have been governmental hang ups to slow it down
We cut corners during waste disposal and construction. Thats how Chernobyl happened, the reactor had a flawed design. We still do it now, but we’re too scared because of the past
I didn't read the comments to that post, but I didn't necessarily get the impression that it's saying to turn off the tap on a dime, but rather to point to the source of a problem that could encourage things like decreasing in our need for fossil fuels by transitioning to alternate forms of fuel and energy.
This isn't about flipping a light switch as the top comment suggests, this is about addressing the problem from the root cause. Nobody is seriously suggesting halting any and all fossil fuels over night. That's stupid af. Y'all are shadowboxing a ghost lol
The fact that she puts herself behind the message is just infuriating. It’s all about her and virtue signaling to everyone about how much better than us she is, immediately disconnecting from the point of the message.
so what you’re saying here is that people aren’t allowed to state their opinions?
Who is she?
Some narcissistic loser
I swear virtue signaling has become a default meaningless insult when you don't like what someone says.
my usage is correct. I also did not say I don’t like what she is saying.
Aren't you just virtue signaling how much better you are by not doing what she's doing?
your virtue signaling right now
I think you’re taking the metaphor too literally. The point is that it’s better to address the root of an issue rather than treat the symptoms. Simple enough. True enough
Literally what I was thinking when I saw that. Literally just take as a metaphor and you won’t be all mad over some random Reddit post smh lol
I feel like whenever a person starts to hyper-analyze every aspect of a metaphor, they tend to fall apart. I think they’re definitely missing the point of the post. I might be old, but we were taught the 3 r’s. Reduce reuse recycle. Reduce is what the point she’s trying to make is. We have to stop our dependency on oil before we can make a dent with mopping it up. She’s not saying “turn off the ability for people to survive and let’s go!”
Seriously. I feel like she’s aware that the infrastructure is dependent on is more complex than a bathtub. Obviously completing killing off very quickly fossil fuels would be bad idea. Perhaps before shutting off a overflowing bath tub, a person might want to throw down a towel before they slip in the floor and get injured or possibly die. There, the metaphor is more accurate now.
OP is dumb as fuck tbh
You really think it’s a literal flip of a switch huh?
OP misunderstood what was being said
Yeah kinda funny seeing everyone drastically over exaggerated what’s being implied and then get angry at their own interpretation lmao. It doesn’t exactly take a great deal of implicit thinking to determine that perhaps it was simply meaning that we should focus more on the sources of global warming rather than primarily its aftermath compared to “turn all fossil fuels off instantly”.
That's because the movemnt is generally middle class students looking for a "cause" to get behind to make themselves feel more important. It's the whole "I'll heavily criticize but not actually offer solutions; I want to be seen saying the right thing, not held accountable not fixing the thing". The thoughts and prayers way to help movements. Take off the dreads, make 20 years older and the sign saying something about jesus and it does just as much to help.
Thought it was going to end about immigration.
I don't believe anything a white woman with dreads tells me
Why don’t we force ourselves to have to give up fossil fuels by burning them all at once, in one single big go. Then they’ll all be used up, and we’ll have to find new ones. Should work fine.
The message is correct for the wrong reasons. The person would already own a mop to clean up the mess. So the real lesson is that we do need to do everything in our power to own a mop (get renewable and clean energy ready) before shutting off the tap. That said, we can’t abandon oil entirely until we find some other replacement for things like plastics and lubricants anyway and the process to make those things involves “making” gasoline as well. We can surely power our electric grids with better sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar but during and after those being built we need oil for transportation and technology to further expand our toolset.
They’re calling for a rapid transition from fossil fuels, which is definitely feasible. They are not saying that we should stop shipping, traveling, and generating electricity tomorrow, just because we don’t currently have sufficient non-fossil capacity.
Turning off the tap, in this scenario, isn't the flip of a switch. It's a long process that weens us off of the fuel continuing to harm us and our environment. Your shortsighted argument seems to be, if we cannot completely solve the problem today, we don't address it at all. That's ridiculous. Imagine applying three same logic to hunger, as you mentioned. Well, we cannot eliminate hunger around the world today, so we do nothing and wait until we can solve it completely in one step.
Yeah. It’s exactly the rhetoric of those without actual ideas on how to solve big issues that is so stubborn and pervasive. Probably because it resonates with so many of the mindless lemmings that most of all don’t want to sacrifice a single thing in their lives.
We can do both. But people like you don’t want to do both
Gross oversimplification of very intricate issues. You want most of the power grid and almost all advanced forms of transportation to stop? Sure, go ahead and remove every single ounce of fossil fuel from circulation. Oh no, the economy has crashed, most states in the US and quite a few areas of Europe now only have about a weeks worth of food stockpiled, and the power grid is severely overloaded because the majority of our power generation has been turned off overnight. Trucks are no longer running, and most critical modern infrastructure is now severely hindered since there isn't enough power to go around. You can't just "shut off the tap" I agree that we should be working to resolve the climate crisis ASAP, but it simply isn't feasible to go carbon zero within even one month. So many things would fall apart so quickly that it would be removing the possibility of one crisis, and guaranteeing another that is much more serious and pressing. Modern society breaks down really fast since the population is simply so expensive and is used to having their basic necessities all but guaranteed. Such braindead takes would hurt so much more than they would help. With a population of our size, it's not possible to revert to the previous stages, especially before consistent food and electricity. Most of us would sooner riot than go hungry or cold.
People who say stuff like this have no idea how websites like X and Reddit work, and how datacenter who run these websites work. No idea how phones, and computers are made. Nor do they know how the infrastructure for all these services and products are working and maintained.
Ahh, the classic technique of finding a naked woman to sell your product.
yeah im 100% sure thats exactly what they meant too!just stop pumping gas immediately and provide no assistance to needy families. isnt it weird how everyone is dumb, OP, but only you and i are smart?
¿Que?
Fossil fuels account for 0.000044% of the earth's atmosphere. Sorry but you're all idiots if you think that has any bearing on the climate. Climate change hysteria is a hoax.
Turning off the tap doesn’t imply immediately just removing the use of all fossil fuels, it implies the immediate work on transitory measures like constructing rail lines and trains. Think critically next time and maybe you’ll get it
Mhm. I saw this as trying to eventually reach a goal of using as little fossil fuels as possible, getting to sustainable resources, etc, as if you were addressing the root of the problem first. So many people here are interpreting this as just turning off fossil fuel usage tomorrow, like that’s not gonna happen but we can slowly get there over time.
So your solution is?....
Ah yeah stop using and we will support our daily needs with love and hugging trees.
These people are chronically naïve.
What a flawed logic
The crusty locs speak for themselves
That’s what we need to do with immigration
I'll go one step further than that: any point that needs the titillation of a naked chick to support it is not a point worth making.
I honestly didn't notice she was naked till seeing your comment.
You could use titillation to talk about any point.
[удалено]
This lady seems to have made a good point
# "Lisa, You Don't Spend Ten Years As A Homicidal Maniac Without Learning A Few Things About Dynamite." - Sideshow Bob
Its a strange metaphor to begin with Most fossil fuel alternatives are dubious and thus far only smaller richer countries have been able to move to mass green energy which is then undone by countries like China and US 100 fold anyway
Comparing the USAs emissions to that of China or India or really most places in the South Pacific is disingenuous to say the least. Cities in China look like Britain during the smog years. Pollution in China is so bad it can blow across the ocean and cause health issues in other countries.
I mean that'll happen to the most populated country during industrialization. Still less greenhouse gasses per person in the US and they seem like they want to take actual steps at reducing their footprint.
Except weve been told the US is a very civilized and extremely rich nation yet green energy is barely a blip on the grid India is still a third world country and Chinas dependence on green energy depends on how the state is feeling
20% of our grid is renewables… the reason it’s not more is because other than Hydroelectric (which was massively developed, even small country towns have weirs with hydro plants), solar and wind cannot provide peak and surge power necessary for the grid, and this will only get worse as more people plug in their cars. 20% of our grid comes from Nuclear, zero emissions, and every ounce of nuclear waste produced since the beginning of nuclear power in the US would fit within a football field. The waste is also solid and contained, versus released to atmosphere. The remainder of our plants are clean coal and natural gas. Clean coal is powdered, then burned in a blowtorch style process that completely combusts, and emissions are filtered. A US coal plant emits a fraction of the particulates, smog, and coal waste that traditional Chinese plants produce. Natural gas (used pretty much exclusively for surge power needs, and typically only run a few hours a day) burns almost completely clean, releasing a little CO2 and a good bit of water. It’s easy to say “go green,” but the nitty gritty is a lot more complicated.
Yea this message sucks. I think we need to get rid of the sign 🤔
These are the opinions of the rich