Climate: Majority of fossil fuels need to stay underground, study says

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil-fuels-need-to-stay-underground-study-says.html

by SmkyMt • 5 years ago

22 12 5 years ago

aww_dang4• 5 years ago

Price controls by another name, again. I'm often told how energy companies are responsible for "climate denial" propaganda due to incentives. It seems to be a go-to dismissal, next to "believe the science".

Are proponents of climate apocalypse at all curious of the incentives concerning their proposed "solutions"?

If energy companies have incentives to mislead us, it stands to reason that other actors who would dictate energy consumption to the masses would also have incentives.

mempko• 5 years ago

Is wanting your children and grandchildren to survive a good enough incentive?

aww_dang4• 5 years ago

The stated intent of avoiding the oft predicted, but yet to materialize apocalyptic climate disaster is implicit. The question is in regard to the possibility of ulterior motives and any curiosity the community might share about them.

"Think of the children" was a good enough rationalization to continue the war on drugs and cannabis prohibition. Why we shouldn't we once again defer to the experts and "trust the science"?

Could it be that there are ulterior motives in both cases? Why must we assume that this power grab is purely altruistic or different from other historical examples?

otikik• 5 years ago

They can make videos like this one that capitalize on the leftist outrage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLqXkYrdmjY

Bostonian• 5 years ago

It's not going to happen. A current Bloomberg story is, "Aramco Considers Opening $110 Billion Gas Project to Investors" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/aramco-sa... .

logicalmonster• 5 years ago

Advancements in Carbon Capture and storage (CCS) and other technologies might significantly change this initial estimate. I’m not saying that I love gas as the next 100 years of energy, but I think dealing in absolutes here in a continuously developed field is extreme shortsightedness.

etrautmann• 5 years ago

Yes, but we'd need to make unbelievable strides in a short amount of time in order to meaningfully impact the climate. It may be worth the considerable investment and expense of course, but to imagine offsetting the combined activity of all fossile fuel burning uses is difficult to imagine.

Cycl0ps• 5 years ago

This is all to negate a further rise in temperature. I still believe that long term correction would involve carbon sequestration, literally burying carbon by the ton to remove it from the carbon cycle entirely. Something like project vesta on a large scale

https://www.projectvesta.org/

Climate: Majority of fossil fuels need to stay underground, study says

Related Stories