122
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

The politics of oil are particularly tricky for Democrats, whose chances for victory in next year’s elections can hinge on whether young, climate-focused voters come out in big numbers.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

I heard someone say we are at peak oil now or should be soon so this would make sense. Assuming the trend starts going down now....

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 15 points 9 months ago

OPEC+ has been cutting production recently and the US has filled that gap. The reason people presume we hit peak oil soon is basically EVs. Cars make up a huge part of the global oil consumption and replacing them with anything not using oil would change the equation a lot. The other big story is China and the Chinese economy crashing. If that happens we are going to see a massive decrease in emissions very quickly.

[-] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 months ago

Plus Russia isn't exporting to Europe anymore and the Democrats need to keep gas prices as low as possible because that's all swing voters care about.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Imagine supporting fascism because gas prices are high, this sort of voter is one of the problems with democracy, it kind of falls apart when people aren't educated.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

And the reason people care about the gas prices is because of the jobs they are forced to drive to instead of remote work. Not mention remote work is a nono just to keep commercial real estate high. So really commercial landowners are the root of this.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago

Bad urban planning is the cause of this. Going to work can be done on foot, via bicycle or using trains. All of those do not really use oil, if done right.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah but many jobs are at a international level. People do not need to be in office if the people they work with are in another continent. Like customer service for example has no reason to have a call center.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Changing things via broad policy takes a long, long time.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Especially when your broad policy reinforces the status quo.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Petroleum fuel will diminish due to technological, not political reasons. While it's still valuable, we will still extract it and sell it.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Petroleum fuel will diminish due to technological, not political reasons.

The technology to completely replace it with better options has been available for decades. It's being kept in use purely for political reasons.

While it's still valuable, we will still extract it and sell it.

Well, political reasons and blinkered greed reasons. Then again, those are usually one and the same with US politicians, including the Senator from MBNA himself.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

The energy density of gasoline is still ridiculous, batteries are getting better but they're still catching up

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago

There are other options. A lot of petroleum consumption comes from transport and we have electric trains on some scale for a century. That is a really good option to help out with freight transport and a longer distances passenger transport. HSR can even compete with flying fairly well. Proper urban design enables more walking and cycling. Lead based batteries have been used for small trucks for quite some time. It works, but only for very short journeys.

For the rest we have ethanol for example. Brazil did that on a huge scale and developed a special kind of sugar cane, which makes biofuel not all that insane. Oil based chemistry is really just organic chemistry. We can do not with plant based non fossil fuel oils or biogas. Btw biogas and biodiesel are also interesting options, which we have on some scale for a long time.

For replacing oil boilers for heating we have district heating systems using industrial waste heat and things like electrode boilers for a long time. We have had nuclear for decades and hydro is pretty much the oldest type of power station.

Most of these options are bad today, as we have better ones. But getting rid of oil was always possible. Especially with the lower populations we had a few decades ago. It would have been hard work and cost a lot of money though.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sure, but batteries aren't killing millions if not tens of millions of people a year and they aren't the main reason for the planet becoming increasingly uninhabitable and difficult to traverse regardless of fuel source.

When you consider more than just energy density, gasoline looks like the turn of the (20th) century solution it is, whereas more modern ones consider other factors as well.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 9 months ago

Like, CO² taxes for oil production?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Why would WaPo use space for that particular divisive article I wonder.

It’s a motherfucking mystery!

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

He doesn't have to. There are thousands of stickers on gas pumps all across the country (particularly in red states) praising him for it thanks to the dimwitted MAGA morons. It's all basically free propaganda for him.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

That’ll happen when other sources are cut off

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml -3 points 9 months ago

USA! USA! USA!

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
122 points (94.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5158 readers
678 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS