Canadian Money Forum banner

701 - 720 of 798 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?
The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.

If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.

If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.
.
Just think about how plastic has revolutionized the world. Look around where you're sitting right now and see all the materials made of plastic. Plastic is made from oil.

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?
Yes, I would consider that.
The lithium & other material mine poisoning, the huge algae blooms and water pollution due to fertilizer run off, displacement due to hydro power dams. Oil spills, particulate emissions.

All of that needs to be considered. I NEVER said fossil fuels were best.
I'm just saying we need balance.

Currently I think that fossil fuels offer a net benefit, and the arguments against them all seem wishy washy with little data.
Or they're just point to "global warming" as if it's some infinite cost argument that is worth ANY sacrifice.
We could go all Thanos, and that would really have an impact on the environment, but based on the massive environmental damage they're inflicting for COVID19, I don't think that will fly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
.
Just think about how plastic has revolutionized the world. Look around where you're sitting right now and see all the materials made of plastic. Plastic is made from oil.

ltr
Considering how many things are made of plastic and how revolutionary it is, plastic the best reason to conserve oil. Far better of a reason than some minor warming that may or may not happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.

If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.
Of course. You must also acknowledge that there are other ways to achieve those gains. Your logic is akin to arguing that leaded fuel was so awesome (better than horses), so why should we consider unleaded fuel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
Yes, I would consider that.
The lithium & other material mine poisoning, the huge algae blooms and water pollution due to fertilizer run off, displacement due to hydro power dams. Oil spills, particulate emissions.

All of that needs to be considered. I NEVER said fossil fuels were best.
I'm just saying we need balance.

Currently I think that fossil fuels offer a net benefit, and the arguments against them all seem wishy washy with little data.
Or they're just point to "global warming" as if it's some infinite cost argument that is worth ANY sacrifice.
We could go all Thanos, and that would really have an impact on the environment, but based on the massive environmental damage they're inflicting for COVID19, I don't think that will fly.
The choice is not between continuing to burn fossil fuels forever and a return to pre-industrial technology. Fossil fuels can offer a net benefit yet still have a terrible price in terms of deaths from pollution (and there are lots of deaths and negative health outcomes). If there are other technologies that could produce those benefits at less of a cost to health, life and the environment, that should be celebrated and not fought tooth and nail. Even if your bread is buttered by those deaths.

Reminds me of the scare mongering about electric vehicle batteries need for cobalt, which is dirty for extraction and a conflict resource. Turns out you need cobalt in similar amounts as a catalyst to refine the gasoline to power an ICE car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Of course. You must also acknowledge that there are other ways to achieve those gains. Your logic is akin to arguing that leaded fuel was so awesome (better than horses), so why should we consider unleaded fuel?
What other ways are there that are as successful as fossil fuels? Please back your claim up with facts this time. So far all you've done is admit that unleaded fuel is better than leaded...something that everyone already knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Corn-based biofuels were embraced because politicians wanted to buy votes in Iowa. It was always a bad idea.

Interesting that the people who say 'wait until all the facts are in, preferably decades' on environmental issues are also often the proponents of using untested drugs/treatments for COVID-19 treatment. Not accusing you, kcowan. Just a pattern that your comment made me think of.
Yes every proponent of a new technology focuses on the benefits without any consideration of the downside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
The choice is not between continuing to burn fossil fuels forever and a return to pre-industrial technology. Fossil fuels can offer a net benefit yet still have a terrible price in terms of deaths from pollution (and there are lots of deaths and negative health outcomes). If there are other technologies that could produce those benefits at less of a cost to health, life and the environment, that should be celebrated and not fought tooth and nail. Even if your bread is buttered by those deaths.

Reminds me of the scare mongering about electric vehicle batteries need for cobalt, which is dirty for extraction and a conflict resource. Turns out you need cobalt in similar amounts as a catalyst to refine the gasoline to power an ICE car.
I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.

So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.

So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.
I would agree but would change it to lower/equal cost. And also continue to incentivize reduced usage where it's not necessary, and incentivize research into cleaner technologies to ensure that there will be a future where cleaner tech makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.

So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.
We should be substituting where practical, and making incentives that align with that. All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution. Tilt the balance a bit to nudge people to switch.

This is all happening anyway, but we could accelerate it with the right incentives. And lives would be saved. Think about the lives saved in Ontario since we eliminated coal from our power mix. Nevermind the quality of life impact. I distinctly remember having a smog day in February! Smog warnings have dropped dramatically since we eliminated coal, despite our up-wind neighbours (Michigan, etc.) still using it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
We should be substituting where practical, and making incentives that align with that. All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution. Tilt the balance a bit to nudge people to switch.

This is all happening anyway, but we could accelerate it with the right incentives. And lives would be saved. Think about the lives saved in Ontario since we eliminated coal from our power mix. Nevermind the quality of life impact. I distinctly remember having a smog day in February! Smog warnings have dropped dramatically since we eliminated coal, despite our up-wind neighbours (Michigan, etc.) still using it.
On this " All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution", my response is simple. "no"
If it's equal, it literally doesn't matter. If one is less harmful, it's less harmful.

That's what I don't get about the anti-oil lobby.
If the fossil fuel solution causes less harm, by what logic would you choose the more harmful solution?

Are you concerned about people and the environment, or do you just hate fossil fuels for no logical reason.

I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you're willing to hurt people more, just to not use oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
On this " All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution", my response is simple. "no"
If it's equal, it literally doesn't matter. If one is less harmful, it's less harmful.
You're familiar with how the phrase 'all else being equal' works right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you're willing to hurt people more, just to not use oil.
I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of fuels that kill and maim millions when reasonable alternatives exist. Finding alternatives to powering civilization by burning stuff should be a high priority. Anyone who struggles with this idea should spend some time understanding all the ways air pollution is deleterious to human health.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
You're familiar with how the phrase 'all else being equal' works right?
Are you?
if all else is truly equal, there is literally no reason to choose one over the other.

Also you said "nearly equal", we should go to the balance with less harm.


I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of fuels that kill and maim millions when reasonable alternatives exist. Finding alternatives to powering civilization by burning stuff should be a high priority. Anyone who struggles with this idea should spend some time understanding all the ways air pollution is deleterious to human health.
I agree, there is something wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of something harmful when reasonable alternatives exist.

I think the issue is that you refuse to accept any legitimate argument for burning stuff.
Clean burning propane and natural gas only releases CO2, no pollution.

Why would you want to pollute with nasty toxic chemicals when relatively safe and pollution free alternatives exist?



I think we actually agree on the fundamental principle, do the least harm. However you're blinded to think that even if the harm is "equal", or even slightly less, that fossil fuels are somehow still more equal.

Lets say burning propane causes no pollution. Lets say burning wood causes some particulate pollution, and ethanol from corn causes only CO2, but massive fertilizer runoff and algae blooms from growing it.
I'd say burn propane.
Then if possible, filter the wood particulate and burn that.

Avoid corn based ethanol, it's just bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,371 Posts
CO2 emissions are a big problem and they are rising, but that doesn't fit with the narrative that climate change is a natural phenomena.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,222 Posts
Yawn, Scrubbers.
Sure. But that applies to power plants, not vehicles, and adds to the capital and operating cost. And nat gas still produces a lot of pollution in extraction. I don't argue that strenuously against nat gas power plants as they are reasonably clean compared to other fossil fuel options. And even if EVs are powered by 100% natural gas, it is much cleaner than ICE vehicles because of the pollution control measures in place for centralized power plants. There are even secondary factors like regenerative braking drastically reducing friction brake use and thus fine particles. We should celebrate the conversion of the vehicle fleet to EVs as there is going to be a massive step-change in air quality, particularly in urban areas. The COVID-19 shutdown was a bit of a preview of the dramatic change in air quality, and that is still having many essential services plying the roads with filthy diesels belching particulates.

Coal is dead. Natural gas for power will be backed into a niche of medium-term power production (it's going to lose daily peaking and frequency regulation to batteries and day-to-day generation to nuclear/hydro/renewables). Gas will be useful for 3-4 day lulls in renewable generation until storage technology catches up to longer term storage. Nat gas will also be used in chemical processes and process heat, at least until alternatives can be found. But I'm not sure we should be celebrating that we have to rely on that industry. Fracking is nasty business (not in my backyard, please) and seems to result in a lot of methane leaking into the atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
Sure. But that applies to power plants, not vehicles, and adds to the capital and operating cost. And nat gas still produces a lot of pollution in extraction. I don't argue that strenuously against nat gas power plants as they are reasonably clean compared to other fossil fuel options. And even if EVs are powered by 100% natural gas, it is much cleaner than ICE vehicles because of the pollution control measures in place for centralized power plants. There are even secondary factors like regenerative braking drastically reducing friction brake use and thus fine particles. We should celebrate the conversion of the vehicle fleet to EVs as there is going to be a massive step-change in air quality, particularly in urban areas. The COVID-19 shutdown was a bit of a preview of the dramatic change in air quality, and that is still having many essential services plying the roads with filthy diesels belching particulates.

Coal is dead. Natural gas for power will be backed into a niche of medium-term power production (it's going to lose daily peaking and frequency regulation to batteries and day-to-day generation to nuclear/hydro/renewables). Gas will be useful for 3-4 day lulls in renewable generation until storage technology catches up to longer term storage. Nat gas will also be used in chemical processes and process heat, at least until alternatives can be found. But I'm not sure we should be celebrating that we have to rely on that industry. Fracking is nasty business (not in my backyard, please) and seems to result in a lot of methane leaking into the atmosphere.
They use urea to reduce vehicle NOX.

Coal is dead?
They're still building new coal power plants, I would argue that it's still quite alive.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for new technology, or even that we shouldn't use it, or develop it.

I AM saying that we should not hurt people to pursue these new endeavours. That's it.

I'm all for reducing pollution.
Global warming, I'm not convinced that anyone has a workable plan to address it
1. We have no plan to stop it.
We will not have a plan to stop it.
The "Plans" are basically massive wealth transfer schemes to fund big government.

2. Any talk of adjusting to adapt or mitigate the impacts is met with scorn that we're not focusing on prevention.
I don't think prevention will happen, because quite honestly there is no political will.
China isn't going to kill their economy just to make Greta happy. That's just not happening.


People aren't serious about climate change science, it's just a modern religion and sin tax to achieve other goals.
 
701 - 720 of 798 Posts
Top