Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We industrialized the world, lifted billions out of poverty, and increased living standards. Why do people ignore the human progress's we've made. Folks really need to have some perspective.


I recently read almost exactly this talking point earlier today, about Exxon’s lies.

Almost word for word.

1) that’s weird. 2) we make trade off choices all of the time, it’s what society does. However, when one side argues that the trade offs don’t exist, or lie about them, that’s deeply immoral, especially when it is such a pervasive, existential threat.

“If you work this job I have for you in my mine, I know for a fact you’ll get mesothelioma, I won’t tell you, and in fact fight tooth and nail to convince you and everyone else that it’s perfectly safe. But now that you have mesothelioma, why don’t you think about the salary we paid you? How it supported your whole life? Maybe have a bit of perspective, huh?”


Had we acted on climate change in the 1980s, I doubt that would have made much difference on living standards in the end. And insofar as it would, it would have been worth it. Maybe we could have avoided the worst externalities of petrochem and consumerism-centered lifestyle.


What’s progress if then m/billions will die with climate change?


Right. Oil is energy. A very energy dense, low volume, light weight, easily transportable form of energy.

It’s truly a liquid with magical properties that doesn’t have a green equivalent.

Now the ask is to make people’s lives uncomfortable? I doubt that’s going to fly.

My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins.

Energy makes our lives great.


People have figured out carbon capture; people haven't figured out economical carbon capture at scale yet (except for reforestation, which only partially helps), and it feels like we're a long way off. If you want to incentivize the creation of CCS while still penalizing the externality (cost to society of a carbon intensive economy), you'd probably want to ratchet up something like a carbon tax, and then give a rebate for performing something like carbon capture. That might create the economies of scale needed.


Petroleum and Sea Power -- https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/

Before airplanes, before tanks, the oil-fired battleship was a vast improvement over coal-fired battleships.

Also "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin is essential for understanding the history of oil.


While it is energy, it is basically bottled sunshine.


> My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins.

Otherwise known as a tree


Trees are great. What I mean is engineering Trees that convert sunlight in a super efficient way and bear electroil fruits.

Electroil is an imaginary liquid that is as energy dense as oil but can be converted to electricity at almost a 100% efficiency

We know most of the oil is used to power engines. It’s not a very efficient chemical to kinetic energy conversion.


While taking action and changing our ways and the use of some products to prevent further damage to the ozone layer, and even reverse damages.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.


And all it cost was the inevitable total destruction of our climate and ecology! Yay!


Would that not have happened had we been more responsible with our greenhouse gas emissions?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: