Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. CONTEXT

CONTEXT

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
petromafiaconsumerism
24 Posts 13 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©

    @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

    bullshit

    get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done

    of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern

    much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction

    especially in regards to climate change

    that difference matters

    of course it's not perfect

    as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person

    Brad MacphersonB This user is from outside of this forum
    Brad MacphersonB This user is from outside of this forum
    Brad Macpherson
    wrote last edited by
    #12

    @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.

    The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda πŸ˜‚

    Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B GhostOnTheHalfShellG 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • e-FlexE e-Flex

      @blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell you should probably watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

      GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
      GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
      GhostOnTheHalfShell
      wrote last edited by
      #13

      @eFlex @blogdiva

      I have already watched it. the trade-off he talks about in terms of costs in CO2 production while he never references the mining and refinement payload that comes with all these renewables.

      In order to build out this glorious renewable future we only have to exponentially, expand the destruction of the world, psychologies and sacrifice exponentially more people, and the ecologies they depend on that we all depend on ultimately.

      GhostOnTheHalfShellG 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • GhostOnTheHalfShellG GhostOnTheHalfShell

        @eFlex @blogdiva

        I have already watched it. the trade-off he talks about in terms of costs in CO2 production while he never references the mining and refinement payload that comes with all these renewables.

        In order to build out this glorious renewable future we only have to exponentially, expand the destruction of the world, psychologies and sacrifice exponentially more people, and the ecologies they depend on that we all depend on ultimately.

        GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
        GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
        GhostOnTheHalfShell
        wrote last edited by
        #14

        @eFlex @blogdiva

        Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.

        And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.

        Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2

        GhostOnTheHalfShellG 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Brad MacphersonB Brad Macpherson

          @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.

          The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda πŸ˜‚

          Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
          Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
          Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©
          wrote last edited by
          #15

          @brad @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

          no argument

          except that this is an orthogonal argument, another topic that you are invoking

          which is fine

          but it doesn't dispel the point in the top level comment blogdiva is making, nor does it support the argument GhostOnTheHalfShell is making

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • e-FlexE e-Flex

            @blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell you should probably watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

            GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
            GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
            GhostOnTheHalfShell
            wrote last edited by
            #16

            @eFlex @blogdiva

            I think people should definitely read 99th Day, because the problem is the level of resource use, and the destructive payload that comes with energy production.

            https://gerrymcgovern.com/books/99th-day/

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©

              @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

              bullshit

              get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done

              of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern

              much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction

              especially in regards to climate change

              that difference matters

              of course it's not perfect

              as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person

              GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
              GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
              GhostOnTheHalfShell
              wrote last edited by
              #17

              @benroyce @blogdiva

              You say bullshit, but do you understand the actual environmental costs of building a renewable infrastructure.

              You should consider for a moment that the corporations who extract resources are quite happy to Greenwash them because they are no different than big oil or big tobacco.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©

                @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                bullshit

                get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done

                of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern

                much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction

                especially in regards to climate change

                that difference matters

                of course it's not perfect

                as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person

                draNgNonD This user is from outside of this forum
                draNgNonD This user is from outside of this forum
                draNgNon
                wrote last edited by
                #18

                @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva there is also the consideration wrt the effects of vehicle exhaust. Unless the power plants are coal, that's a straight up win for the carbon cycle.

                Of course the batteries have rare chemicals and extractive companies still come into play. But they are there for vehicles regardless.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©

                  @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                  bullshit

                  get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done

                  of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern

                  much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction

                  especially in regards to climate change

                  that difference matters

                  of course it's not perfect

                  as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person

                  GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                  GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                  GhostOnTheHalfShell
                  wrote last edited by
                  #19

                  @benroyce @blogdiva

                  I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..

                  Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.

                  In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.

                  Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B Bent ChinrestP 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • Brad MacphersonB Brad Macpherson

                    @benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.

                    The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda πŸ˜‚

                    GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                    GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                    GhostOnTheHalfShell
                    wrote last edited by
                    #20

                    @brad @benroyce @blogdiva

                    And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.

                    The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.

                    The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.

                    The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality

                    Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • GhostOnTheHalfShellG GhostOnTheHalfShell

                      @benroyce @blogdiva

                      I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..

                      Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.

                      In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.

                      Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
                      Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
                      Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©
                      wrote last edited by
                      #21

                      @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                      this is the trap of perfectionism

                      there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain

                      you can't

                      is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?

                      yes

                      is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?

                      also yes

                      but why make enemies of these fine goals

                      applaud both, push both

                      don't make them enemies. that is a lie

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • GhostOnTheHalfShellG GhostOnTheHalfShell

                        @brad @benroyce @blogdiva

                        And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.

                        The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.

                        The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.

                        The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality

                        Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
                        Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©B This user is from outside of this forum
                        Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡©
                        wrote last edited by
                        #22

                        @GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva

                        so go do that

                        i support your agenda

                        why must you attack another agenda that is also good?

                        applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

                        *and* work on your agenda

                        you can do both, because both are good things

                        positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • GhostOnTheHalfShellG GhostOnTheHalfShell

                          @eFlex @blogdiva

                          Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.

                          And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.

                          Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2

                          GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                          GhostOnTheHalfShellG This user is from outside of this forum
                          GhostOnTheHalfShell
                          wrote last edited by
                          #23

                          @eFlex @blogdiva

                          For instance, in order for China to produce those incredibly inexpensive, solar panels, they’ve caused enormous tracks of old growth forest in Southeast Asia to be cut down.

                          Question becomes how many brown people and how much of the world’s ecologies are you happy to obliterate as a sacrifice zone, to keep using as much energy as we do. In order to build this so-called renewable future exponentially more life has to be exterminated.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • GhostOnTheHalfShellG GhostOnTheHalfShell

                            @benroyce @blogdiva

                            I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..

                            Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.

                            In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.

                            Bent ChinrestP This user is from outside of this forum
                            Bent ChinrestP This user is from outside of this forum
                            Bent Chinrest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #24

                            @GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva good bet the very next proposed strategy is a eugenicist purge of half the world's latitudes

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            • Login or register to search.
                            Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups