politics @lemmy.world laverabe @lemmy.world 9mo ago

Opinion | Why Don’t We Just Ban Fossil Fuels?

www.nytimes.com Opinion | Why Don’t We Just Ban Fossil Fuels?

The idea doesn’t make sense now, but it’s still worth thinking about.

36 comments

Answer: They are far too useful.
- are they? If you add their utility and total negative externalities they are essentially un-useful. We have the technology now to phase them out over the next 10-20 years. All that is lacking is the political will.
  
  Now != 10-20 years, when power outages are solved, then we can talk.
Because a carbon tax incremented over a period of years would achieve the desired outcome with much less administrative burden and economic impact.

We should use fossil fuels sometimes - when it's worth paying the real cost!
- Problem is the total accumulated CO2 already there. We would need to be net zero yesterday to mitigate imo.
  
  Capitalistic institutions haven't been serious or motivated enough to make any real effort. They'll make up their next cop-out like carbon credits or whatever
  
  It can, and will, get worse.
  
  A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.
  
  the first step to caring for a injury is to stop further harm. a combat medic covers their patient's wounds from falling dust and dirt by placing their body between - then evacuates the patient to safer location.
  
  we have to stop the bullshit uses of petrochemicals. the flagrant waste, the waste for recreation, the waste for convenience, toys etc.
  
  plastics for food, plastics for medical tech, industrial use and exploration - force everything else to reusables.
  
  the best way to overcome the enormous build-up already accumulated IS TO STOP ADDING TO IT IMMEDIATELY.
Because if you just ban them you would destroy the economy of basically everyone, even your community probably.
- Wonder what'll happen to the economy when we cook ourselves to death
- The economy isn't real
- Nah, we'll bounce back probably
Because the people running our country make a lot of money off of them.
- The entire industry employs a great number of people. It’s not so simple to just ban all fossil fuels (even if it is what we need to do) and leave millions out of work. Think of how many industries rely on fossil fuels as well, just to move things or people around. All those jobs go bye-bye overnight too.
  
  I’m not saying we shouldn’t ban fossil fuels, but the fallout from doing so needs to be addressed before it becomes a problem in the first place.
  
  Obviously yes but it could be done. We have the resources and labor power to do it but we don't
Why don't we ban sharing links with paywalls?
- I haven't experienced the NY times paywall in awhile. I don't mean to sound lectury but there really is no reason to not use Firefox desktop or mobile with ublock origin. It is so much nicer of a web experience, and NY times has some nice articles.
  
  <.< Fuck iOS people then, I suppose.
  
  I just downloaded Firefox and installed uBlock on my phone to test this. Didn't work. Any specific settings?
  
  Edit: hmm OK, figured out the custom filter import for paywalls... do you feel comfortable adding Javascript managed by random people to your browser?
  
  For anyone who doesn't know this... Install uBlock > My filters > scroll down until you see import...
  
  Import these two:
  
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liamengland1/miscfilters/master/antipaywall.txt
  
  https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt
  
  I don't know... I don't feel comfortable doing this. I usually only install trusted stuff in my machines. This feels like an easy way to get screwed.
  
  That person could go rogue and then you have malicious Javascript running next to your credentials on every tab.
  
  Edit 2: after checking in detail, those filters aren't Javascript logic. So it seems fine. I thought it was some form of minimized Javascript
- That should absolutely be against the sub rules, if you post a paywalled link you should also be required to post the archive link.
  Or, just post with the archive link to begin with.
- https://archive.ph/3DyY8
Definitely worth thinking about for the future. Right now it would fuck over a whole lot of working class people. We need to get robust public transit up and running.
- a whole lot of working class people
  
  it would fuck over our entire economy and infrastructure. it's an asinine question to pose by itself, in a vacuum.
  
  But we will have to get there, especially for the optional shit - cruise ships, motorcross, snow-mobiling, pleasure / recreation boats and RVs - if it's optional, aka, not absolutely necessary to the business of righting the ecosystem, it goes.
  
  Let people cruise and moto and snowmobile on renewably derived electricity if they absolutely HAVE to have these luxuries, but no more 2-strokes spewing unburned gas into the ecosystem, no more 'environmental cruises' to the arctic where these fucks burn bunker oil constantly in the last 'mostly untouched' ecosystem on the planet.
  
  The only question is: how serious are we, as a species, about stopping the pain?
  
  Because at the rate we're going, we won't - and will doom our species and ecosystem, and it's coming QUICK. 1.5c is gone already lol. The mountains are not regaining snowpack. the AMOC is wobbling. Once that goes, large parts of the ecosystem will falter.
  
  So can we quickly do the mature thing and put away the toys, and struggle with a single focus on saving ourselves?
  
  Or will we let the dipshits and assholes vroom vroom their way to our collective destruction, because we decided long ago to let the stupids drive the bus?
archive.ph link.
Government would burn a lot of fossil fuels in the effort to save you from the sin of doing it yourself

36 comments