We need both. Fucking hate binary thinking. It’s a curse.
Maybe, but one seems to get all the attention and little results.
That’s because no one pays attention to the huge developments in infrastructure or the amazing new technologies coming to market - e fuels like sequestered carbon jet fuel made from excess renewable power, and no it’s not a science fiction dream it’s happening now. Of course we should have more funding for these things but they are happening.
A huge part of that problem is that people resist even the slightest positive change, paper straws are fine but I bet there are people who like this post who also liked posts complaining about them - if we stopped organized sports and spent that half a trillion on transitioning local infrastructure or establishing carbon sequestration systems with productive use of captured carbon (e.g. building materials that get landfilled at eol) we could move much faster, but no one will give up a single football game to save the planet they’d rather bomb something and feel like a hero
Not saying I disagree but methinks many of you don’t realize everything we use fossil fuels for from plastic to fertilizer it’s not just gas. You think costs are spiralling out of control now… oooh boy just wait.
Society would change, a lot. I’d be very interested in what a plastic-phobic society would look like. Remember milkmen, who would take one empty glass bottle and give you a full one?
We still have those!
As in, billions will die? That is a big change indeed…
I would love a return to milkmen tbh
That’s true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn’t the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really (“really”) need to make from oil?
The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don’t really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.
Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and “smoothly”. If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won’t they?
We already know how to create plastics from CO2 extracted from the air and hydrogen from water. There is no shortage of raw material for plastics. The main question for the industry is cheap plastics and the answer to that has always been cheap oil and gas.
Using proven reserves and current consumption you get to 47 years and things run out. That’s a “within my lifetime” number for many.
Nail on the head! It’s not that we can’t make products from something other than curde oil, it’s just by far the cheapest. To a lot of people the economy is more important than the environment.
We can make plastic out of fucking algae if we wanted. Doctors aren’t going to run out of gloves because a bunch of internet autists decided to blow up a coal plant.
I’d be more worried about the people on O2 and life support who need access to electricity. It’s why I support forcing power companies to switch to renewables so we can transition humanely. Note that holding shotguns to oil execs’ heads to make them sign the paperwork is in no way inhumane :P
So my understanding out of this is that we need a government that takes responsibility and raises taxes on the cheap oil and gas to move the industry in the right direction. And we need a system where politicians aren’t being paid by companies so they make decisions in their favor.
As a last point I’d like to mention that by that time there will be bio fuels and bio plastics. I am hoping that we will move to those within those 47 years.
Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
unfortunately the last two decades of discovery have provided ample petroleum and natural gas sources that won’t be exploited unless we commit to fully and intentionally cooking the atmosphere.
we’re not going to run out of petroleum, which will make it even harder to get people to leave it behind.
Say what now
We have plenty of rope with which to hang ourselves.
We’re working on all sorts of alternatives for fuels and for the plastics as you mention. I think we’ll be fine as far as that’s concerned. I agree that prices will go up and it will be hard. And it’s up to governments to deal with these things responsibly.
The main issue is politics in a broken system and politicians being paid by companies that don’t have our best interests in mind. How do we fight back?
Oh and trains. We need lots of trans because cleaning power supply is easier and cleaner than making batteries for trucks.
I wouldn’t say we should get rid of all plastics. Some of it is required for medical purposes and food safety.
I would love for governments to grow some balls and start fighting against climate change. But in the case that that doesn’t happen (and it probably won’t because money). I would rather take price increase and inconvenience in exchange for a planet that’s still livable in 100 years.
we could also use some responsible disposal rules for plastics to prevent them from ending up in our circulatory systems and oceans.
If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.
Plant based plastics are a thing.
Really, the only way we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels successfully is if they are more expensive than the alternatives. I hear shit like that all the time (big example is meat alternatives). Simply removing the subsidies that fossil fuels do enjoy would go a long way toward making them less attractive.
You’re right, I think. But isn’t that the entire problem ? government collusion with private interests ?
Long life oil based plastic products aren’t so bad.
Meat alternatives are bullshit. We need meat*, and grass fed beef and lamb are probably carbon neutral, almost definitely carbon neutral if anything comes of the seaweed fix for their methane emissions
And yes, kill government support for the oil industry and uses for the oil. Animals are going to be important for providing fertiliser for fields that abandon industrial stuff
*We can survive without it, we can do well with bacterial sourced creatine supplements, but we thrive on real meat
Meat alternatives are perfectly fine. And tons of people do perfectly fine with zero meat at all and thrive just as much as people who eat meat daily. I have no qualms with eating meat since I do but let’s not kids ourselves and say it is a necessity.
The big problem with beef is the amount of land and resources it takes. It takes a fuck ton of water and feed to get a pound of beef. The added carbon from beef is largely due to transportation of the feed, electricity, and also transportation of it on its way to the store. If that were all green sources, cattle would basically be carbon neutral. We are a long way from that though. And even if the energy sources for those were green, the other resources they eat up leads to massive destruction of environments.
Animals can certainly play a part in sustainable farming but the amount we currently have is absurd and is nowhere near sustainable. Just killing the subsidies alone would bring it significantly closer to sustainable. If the US stopped providing subsidies for the cattle industry, beef would be $35/lb.
The land used for beef isn’t useful for anything else. In Australia it’s arid grasslands. We can’t eat grass, sheep and cows can turn grass into wool and milk and meat
Transportation of feed is not a factor in grass fed, grass finished animals
Who said anything about veganism? You do know that being a vegetarian is not the same as being vegan, right?
If the beef industry was largely composed of grass fed cattle that requires no grass to be watered, there would be much less of an issue. But that only makes up a small percentage of the industry. And saying that grassland is not useful for anything ignores the ecosystem that is already there. It may be arid but it is not devoid of life.
But forcing a sustainable model and removing subsidies would absolutely go a long way toward mitigating the environmental impact of the beef industry since beef would likely be USD $70/lb.
A statement like “veganism is unhealthy” is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?
There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.
And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).
“Veganism is unhealthy” in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren’t mindful of what you’re eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let’s go ahead and label that unhealthy too.
Almost all of the things have fossil fuel free alternatives and the out of control costs are mostly from corporate greed. Strict but fair price controls would enable a society that can afford not to use fossil fuels for all but a few things.
To think we really let the company who made YouTube’s Compression handle the next image format.
We didn’t, they decided to force it onto us. JPEG-XL is technically superior, but they refused to implement it into Chromium to push their own garbage because they know most people use Chromium anyway.
Just switch to Firefox nightly
I have no idea why it doesn’t work in Firefox standard, the option to turn support on is there but it does nothing
I noticed that, nice to know it’s in nightly.
Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone’s gonna actually use the format because the vast majority of people can’t use it.
Sites should nag people for using an “Unsupported Browser” and tell them to switch to a modern & secure one like Firefox or Librewolf.
Removed by mod
That would only make you feel good. It would not make real change.
I’m frustrated that I want to get a full off the grid solar setup but then it’ll cost 25K and won’t really offset itself until 10 years or more. I’ll feel good about being net zero in home energy usage but that is not a cost that the average person can afford.
It’ll be more than $25k. A battery alone is $10k, and a 10kw system is more than $25k.
Take a look at a year’s worth of electricity bills to see what size you actually need to hit zero. Consider where a future EV fits in.
I was thinking I want just 4 or 5 kw of storage. Also wanting an electric car to plug in but that’s another coat I’m not ready to dive into. Ugh.
Size refers to how many solar panels you have and their efficiency. Try https://sunroof.withgoogle.com but I think that site undersizes and expects you to pull some from the grid.
Molotovs are the preferred beverage of the revolution
Taste like victory
At least y’all are being honest now. I was getting tired of being gaslit.
That “gaslighting” was us asking nicely
What did you think all of the talk about revolution involved? Radical change isn’t normally achieved through peaceful measures
MLK wouldn’t have been as successful if there wasn’t Malcolm X.
This is actually a popular misconception. MLK was just as radical as Malcolm X, it’s just that his more radical writings and speeches are not as popular or quoted. Libs and conservatives both want you to believe that MLK was a reasonable progressive liberal, when in fact he despised them. I say this as a huge fan of both MLK and Malcolm X, and I had this explained to me initially by a professor of African American history at university.
Radical, yes. But as big as an advocate for violence as Malcolm? I admit I haven’t read much on MLK.
Another way to say it is that every movement needs a carrot, a stick, and an ultimatum. The carrot is evangelizing the injustice (MLK), the stick is direct action (Malcolm X), and the ultimatum is an implicit show of force and dedication that demonstrates how many people will resort to the stick if the carrot is not accepted (the mach on Washington).
While I am nearly always in the peaceful outreach camp, I strongly suspect that my efforts will not see fruition until breathless WSJ editorials start describing environmentalists as “dangerous” and “unamerican.”
That’s my point. I knew y’all were wannabe terrorists for a while, but everyone kept denying/downplaying it. I now have several highly up voted posts to point at. I’m sure the denial will continue, but this a start.
Funny how the people who want to harm the oil companies are “terrorists,” but the people literally destroying the earth are not
Radical? Sure. Terrorist? Nah. Liberals (and especially right wing libs) are violent towards marginalized groups and literally the planet itself, among others. Marxists, anarchists, etc. are violent towards capitalism and those who seek to uphold it. Revolution takes shape in many ways and some of those are violent, particularly towards the end. Don’t act like the system we’re living in isn’t abhorrent and violent. Politics in all of its forms boil down to violence. What are you seeking to build, what needs to be destroyed, who stands in your way, and what means are you able to use? That’s politics in a nutshell. Answer those questions for the majority of governments the world over and then answer them for your left wing Boogeyman of choice. Which sounds like it’s worth fighting for?
GOD I LOVE TERRORISM
It’s not terrorism, it’s 🌟🌍ecoterrorism🌎🌟
I’d like just a little terrorism and murder, just enough to scare off investors and insurers from fossil fuel producers, refiners, distributors and mass users, to speed things up and maybe prevent the uncountable future deaths from failed monsoons, heat waves, overpowered storms, and eventually sea level rises
You’re probably gonna make it worse for everyone. It’s probably more profitable to have more security around the infrastructure than to just abandon it, so that’s more expensive. You’re gonna make it more difficult to convince people to actually believe in climate change and legislation that helps the cause, since the climate movement is associated with terrorism.
Just vote for the candidates that actually care about the climate and invest in preserving it. You can also help a little bit by using things that have a very low carbon footprint over its lifetime, like an electric car or using public transportation. These things are just off the top of my head but terrorism ain’t it.
Just vote for the candidates that actually care about the climate
I vote green. Americans can’t unless they’re willing to throw their vote away
You can also help a little bit by using things that have a very low carbon footprint over its lifetime
Cars are a tiny fraction of a country’s carbon footprint
- Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%
- Direct Industrial Processes: 5.2%
- Waste: 3.2%
- Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use: 18.4%
Energy includes road transport which is 11.9%, of which cars+motorbikes+buses is 60% so 7.4% overall
Animal agriculture is about the same as passenger transport
My EV is a drop in the bucket. Only fossil fuel investors and governments can move the needle
Carbon numbers are from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
I vote green. Americans can’t unless they’re willing to throw their vote away
Not necessarily, you can vote for someone who invests in nuclear over someone who invests back into coal
Cars are a tiny fraction of a country’s carbon footprint
Maybe, but there are other steps that you can take to minimize your print. Something like a solar array. Sure these are very small steps but they aren’t a money sink like they used to be and if enough people adopt them, they could do something.
problem is the terrorists aren’t liberals, they’re accelerationists who want a civil war.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/power-grid-attacks-00114563
Spicy takes are the best takes though, op
Which is why extremism continues to rise
And that’s a good thing. We need a revolution like yesterday, ten years ago really.
More of a peaceful revolution kinda guy if possible but hard to do these days with how dire some things are getting.
I have a good feeling such revolutionaries would only fuel the oppositions fire
It doesn’t actually matter what they or others think and that’s a lesson I as well as other revolutionaries have had to learn the hard way over the years.
Public support has been made impossible to secure with the collapse of the education system and propaganda designed to convince Americans to reject education and learning.
So it’ll be up to the few people who managed to resist it to either revolt, or try to escape.
What of the police state though? How can revolutionaries stay out of the gulags in order to fight these revolutions you speak of.
I don’t believe in the extreme, tired ways of the retirees of the world. There’s plenty of smart routes to change that don’t require being thrown in jail.
We live in the technical age, one hacking group took out most of Las Vegas slots. Anything is possible through though and intelligent action. Stupid violence leads to unnecessary death.
Bail fund. Physically bust open the jails. Attack police and liberate people from arrest. You know, the usual.
I agree with you that white-collar tactics should be a part of the revolutionary’s repertoire of government -overthrowing tactics, but honestly, I don’t see how it’s possible to completely avoid getting physical with those cretins at some point.
Most violence is actually intelligent. They’re never mutually exclusive.
While these idiots are advocating for a revolution they’ll neither participate in not be effective if they did, the rest of the world will just keep innovating it’s way out of problems.
People like the dude you’re replying to are the worst kind of useless. They’re the kind of person buying Powerball tickets to try to get out of debt.
Yet they seem effective enough that you are regarding them as a threat, hence you’re investing all that time and energy you’re supposedly putting toward innovation into arguing with people like me on the Internet.
Public support has been made impossible to secure
Definitely a sign you’re going to win a war.
Definitely something you genuinely care about and totally not you looking to push pro status quo bullshit.
i’ll never need to care because this is just a fantasy you console yourself with while not actually doing anything helpful
If the revolution comes, I can pretty much guarantee you’re not gonna see the end of it.
Always blows my mind that you people think you’ll somehow survive the war you encourage happening lol
Who said I would? I never did. I did not ever even think it. I support it because I care about my family and future generations. Fighting a revolution is a sacrifice you make for other people and is therefore the highest of moral acts.
The fact that you’d even say that shows how selfish and cowardly you are.
You can’t have the old world anymore. Your world requires exploiting the rest of us and you don’t have the right to do that. Make your own goddamn Big Macs.
You first coward.
So we’re acknowledging that it’s mostly a coordination problem.
I wouldn’t call it a hot take
i guess explosive take fits better
They only works if you’re wealthy enough to be solely dependent on your EV. Everyone else who can’t afford one or takes transit would be fucked
Imagine you’re in a room and someone is pumping some gas into the room. SSsssssssssssssss.
The people pumping in the gas say “don’t worry it’ll be ok, just keep on doing your work, trust us!” But the smartest people in the room all say “yeah… that’s gonna kill us eventually.”
One guy starts kicking at the vent the gas is coming from.
Another guy says “keep that racket down! I want to be a good boy and get my work done!”
Who is the reasonable person in this scenario?
The reasonable person is the one who realizes they’re all brainwashed into allowing themselves to be murdered and runs out of the room. Even the guy who kicks the machine is damning himself because the others are programmed to turn on him when he does, stopping his efforts and distracting him, guaranteeing he’ll suffocate too.
It really would be better for us just to leave and start a new country elsewhere, or at least shoot the people pumping in gas from afar.
I fully agree with the sentiment… but I’m also not sure kicking at the vent will do much to stop the room from filling. To solve that I think we’d need to tackle the larger forces creating a situation where someone somehow benefits from the absurd situation of pumping gas into this hypothetical shared room…aka economic system.
Certainly not the person who keeps blaming the underpaid worker for the gas leak instead of the billionaire who owns the building.
So you think the reasonable person is the one that wants to sit around debating who’s fault it is while gas is still pumped into the room is the reasonable person?
We shouldn’t damage that gas pump because an underpaid worker installed it? We don’t want to be a nuisance! SSSSSSssssssssssssss…
Let me fix that analogy. Imagine everyone in the room is pumping varying amounts of gas into the room and if they suddenly decide to stop, a significant number of people in the room are going to die.
Now sure, people are going to die anyway, but humans tend to be a lot more comfortable with the negative consequences of inaction than the negative consequences of action.
But pumping the gas is the action, and stopping is inaction.
What would it require for people to restructure modern society in a way that would allow humans to stop producing greenhouse gases? A lot of actions. We can’t simply “stop” without the widespread availability of alternative technologies for energy production and transportation.
We are already allowed to stop. Turning on a machine is an action. We don’t need more technology to stop using existing technology.
It sounds like your concern is more systemic than the literal action of polluting. In which case, the action we’re currently taking is legal protection of polluters from people who would defend themselves.
Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but we aren’t entitled to all the same stuff we have today, at the cost of destroying the climate. We’re essentially stealing from future people.
Your mistake is to assume everyone is on the same level, having access to the same amounts of resources. The guy asking you to let him do his job is doing so in order to survive. He doesn’t think four generations ahead. He barely thinks four meals ahead.
So the guy working to survive is the reasonable one, whilst people with no food, power, living, clothing, infrastructure, or any real form of insecurity, who ask them to start kicking the vent are just too obtuse and unaware of the real world to start thinking about reason.
Global warming is bad. Your kids crying themselves to sleep because of hunger is worse. I don’t care what your argument is. It is worse. So stop attacking people trying to survive, and start looking for alternatives before asking people to give their lives up, for your kids future. Be less selfish.
Holy fuck, you’re actually defending someone blind enough to allow themself to be murdered with poisonous gas.
There’s no way you aren’t either some concern troll or a paid shill.
deleted by creator
Worse: saying people that are trying to get by without any help from privileged folks (spoiler alert: those few quid you gave some NGO is being used in its majority to pay for wages in your own country) are “shheeple” is the apex of stupidity.
And criticizing people for pointing pity the flaws in your reasoning just shows how obtuse “green” people actually are. We have to fight global warming, but it does not start by having a Tesla. It starts by having viable alternatives, that are affordable to everyone, so a transition is possible.
So yeah, let’s make tons of noise around ending fossil fuels with an electric Volvo, Mercedes or Audi in the garage. Let say nuclear is as bad as fossil, while we’re at it, so we can show how truly stupid we are. Let’s have less ways for poor people to have food. I am sure Bill Gates will take care of the tab.
Sometimes I wonder if people actually are this stupid, or are just doing it for internet clout.
Lol nah, I am one of the working class and it’s obvious you’re just playing victim because the truth is, you like the system and refuse to believe you’re actually being oppressed.
Meanwhile, that gas is leaking into the room. SSSSSSssss…
The guy trying to break the vent is one of your fellow victims too. He works hard to try to survive. Yet you are completely merciless toward him simply because he recognizes the boots you lick are the problem and you don’t… so where’s his pity? Where’s his sympathy? Where’s his wall of text with motte and baileys subtly defending what he’s doing without outright saying it?
A few of your fellow hardworking victims have already passed out. The brown ones in the south corner, do you see them? A few of them are clawing at the windows trying to break them. Don’t think they’ll disturb your work?
What if the men in the scenario busted into the room with machine guns and announced to everyone that they’re going to systematically murder everyone inside, including you?
Will you get mad at the working class guys who turn over the desks and throw chairs at the mooks with guns to try to save their own lives? Or will you tell them to shut up and stop disturbing you too, as mooks walk desk go desk and shoot you in the back of the head?
😆 You’re such a bootlicking sap. You absolutely do not deserve any sympathy from me and you won’t get any, nor will arguing about whether you deserve it or not stop me personally from breaking those windows and climbing out, the other guys from breaking the vents, or the gas from slowly leaking into the room in the meantime…
SSSSSSSSSssssss…
But maybe the gas has already affected your brain, so there’s no point in arguing with you. Maybe that’s the real moral.
Congratulations, my “working class” friend, for your rant!
Hope you got the kick you needed out of insulting someone, as if you knew me, where I am from and what I am talking about, like probably you do regularly on social media.
Meanwhile, let the grown ups do the dirty work, so you can say your Tesla is the way to go. I am glad my existence makes your arrogance possible. Sleep well. There is no reasoning with obtuse.
SSSSSSSSsssss…
crack crack CRACK!
The rest of us are over here breaking the windows and smashing the vent while you’re too busy getting angry at us for disturbing your work to notice you’re delusional from lack of oxygen, and about to pass out.
SSSSSSSsssss…
Have you ever felt hunger? Have you ever seen someone beg you for food? Not someone approach you in Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, Champs-Élysées, or whichever privileged place you are from, in order to make a buck, but see someone weak from actual hunger? Have you seen that?
I am all for green energy, and God knows I want us to stay away from fossil fuels.
But going “yeah, let’s end fossil fuels, and then see what happens to fix it ” is being very cavalier about ending millions of lifes, making billions suffer all around the world, so you can say you’ve done something good in your privileged community, go to the country club, opera or whatever and boast about your achievement.
But hey, you won’t be affected, so who cares, right? Let the poor eat brioches!
Transit would adapt quickly. Electric rail is easy. It’d only be a few shit years
There is no transit where I live. The only option is EVs which aren’t affordable or suitable for many people.
Electric rail is easy.
LOL tell that to California.
But stuff like pipeline infrastructure, could be used for transporting hydrogen as ammonia in the future.
deleted by creator
I’d be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
Ohno, people who are being systemically killed are making you late for work! Time to turn against them
The dude has a point whether we like it or not. Public support makes a difference. Losing it is a cost. Is what they’re accomplishing worth that cost?
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won’t be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren’t polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user’s take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it’s imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the “dude” doesn’t have a “point.” It’s all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest.
You assume there are significantly more “halfway decent people” than “steaming piles of excrement”. If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn’t be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the “excrement” side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as “steaming piles of excrement”, and all you’re doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says “I’ll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street” while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP’s idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
You don’t actually need public support to shut down fossil fuel infrastructure if your supporters are organized and willing to perish over it. The doomers actually do have large enough numbers that they could organize and set up their own militias if they really wanted to. Hell, the right wing nutjobs do it all the time.
If.
There are a lot of people willing to do jail time over it.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. Standing in traffic is disruptive. What’s the problem?
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
anyone who’s not already on board the climate change cause is either too stupid or too rich to care. neither of which can be fixed.
None of that is a justification for obstructing traffic.
Implying you need much of a justification to block traffic
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s an accurate summary of what I just said.
The only thing those idiots are likely to accomplish is stronger laws against jaywalking.
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying “OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning”?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
deleted by creator
Yeah I get that you’re an asshole that doesn’t believe in anything. You just like hurting other people and pick whatever cause allows you to do so.
Given you’re a professional asshole, why should anyone give a shit about you?
If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think
I use that time to think about bills classifying intentional obstruction of traffic to be unlawful detention.
So you’ve chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it’ll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
It could be said that blocking traffic benefits oil producers by increasing gasoline usage and making people less sympathetic to the cause against them. Wasn’t there a case of someone in the oil industry paying people to protest in a similarly asinine way?
deleted by creator
Haha so you’re a racist asshole that expects people to be sympathetic to your personal hardships? You don’t deserve any sympathy.
Why not support both?
Giving the general public and the oil companies a common enemy. It’s a bold move, Cotton.
Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.
Gasoline won’t become unavailable. There is too much redundancy built into the production and distribution networks.
What would happen is the price of gasoline would rise, which would further drive electric vehicle adoption.
OP’s approach is infinitely superior to harassing drivers directly.
Oil prices rising won’t just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
Natural gas is a petroleum product.
🤔 Okay, let’s hack the banks, redistribute all of the money electronically and then pay for electric infrastructure ourselves.
