CLINTEL was founded by an engineer from Shell and a journalist. They want to be a watchdog for climate science but they’ve already publicly made up their minds that climate change is not a problem.
The supposed-scientists who signed it did so using a form on their website. CLINTEL reviews signatures but does not reach out to vet the signers.
Another fun fact: The last time they asked people to sign this declaration, it was found that only 10 of the 500 signatures claimed to be climate scientists
Conclusion: I could not give less of a fuck about the climate opinions of an organization with ties to the oil/gas industry. It’s about as credible as the UAE saying they’re pushing for green energy
Ok so like how can the world transition to clean / green energy, got any info or thoughts?
Are you advocating for a massive reduction in consumption in order to be totally green?
Do you think this will be adopted naturally inevitably at some point when clean / green energy becomes affordable?
I’ve seen some people post complaints that lithium is often mined with slave labor and isn’t sustainable (we can’t recycle it yet). So is there a better thing we should use instead of that?
I’m not advocating for anything as I’m not a climate scientist…but then again, most people on this CLINTEL declaration aren’t, either.
I think green energy would have already had mass-adoption if not for the lobbyists in oil and gas industries. It’s no secret they’ve been fighting the inevitable for decades in order to keep raking in the dough as their profits rely on control of the source energy…and the sun and wind are free so they don’t like it.
Yes there are tons of ways to store energy without lithium. Sand batteries and pumped hydro storage are continually proven successful. Lithium mining is an environmental concern but it pales in comparison
No, the destruction from oil/gas cannot be truly mitigated to any meaningful degree. It can be reduced but never eliminated…and even then, the industry is known to lie about it. Look no further than the chasm between their self-reported emissions and actual emissions.
this kind of seems doubtful. if it was cheaper then “capitalists” would just adopt it because it would save money. So at least some people are skeptical it is cheaper.
Thoughts on nuclear energy? Personally I am skeptical of it, it’s also risky.
the skepticism you have towards oil / gas industries lobbying is now how conservatives seem to feel about “green energy”, that it’s an inefficient scam being pushed by government and a “green industry”. Which leads me kind of split thinking maybe there are elements of either side that are correct. basically like fossil fuels are there so we’re probably going to use them until they run out, then people will be forced to switch; or economics will make people switch. So it’ll just sort itself out, but maybe some plans should be in place in case the techno-industrial system encounters energy shortages all of the sudden.
alternative batteries
Again they must still not be thought to be costly or something. I’ve seen other alternative battery ideas like compressed air suggested… there’s some kind of disconnect though on why these things aren’t being used yet (not cost effective enough yet?).
emissions
Well I guess the idea is emissions can be countered with trees sucking in the bad polluted air and bringing out clean air. Is there anything like this process that holds up, or no? If green tech has emissions (in creating it), does this give some kind of justification to use the fossil fuels (the pro-gas industry might simply argue they emit more, but green tech emits, so who cares - this kind of thing?)
We had electric cars in the 70s before the oil industry (literally) crushed them. Solar advancements have been stifled by the same industry since the technology began…imagine if governments invested there instead of approving a thousand more oil rigs.
Cheaper for them doesn’t mean more profit. Like I said, they control the material required for energy creation - THAT’S the money maker. You can’t control the supply of solar and wind so you can’t control the prices. That is a problem for the capitalists in charge.
I think fission is better than fossil fuels but it’s not the perfect solution. I think fusion, when technology proofs it viable, will exist in tandem with green energy.
The “skepticism” I have toward oil and gas is based on evidence so it’s not at all comparable to the conservatives’ view on green energy which is based on…fear mongering I guess? Those industries have massive lobbies which have proven time and time again to be massive liars. This isn’t an opinion, it’s publicly-available information.
Pumped hydro and sand batteries are being used already, there just isn’t mass adoption. It goes back to my first point - there’s way less money to be skimmed off the top when an industry doesn’t have a monopoly. There is no reason to have these alternative batteries already out there when they’re not essential to fossil fuels production (they use “standard” storage technologies).
Sure, you could plant billions of trees to offset it…but there’s no profit there so they won’t do it. Emissions aren’t the only pollution coming from fossil fuels that poisons the environment. There’s liquid and solid pollutants coming out of those factories.
If you’re asking about the pollution from creating the solar panels…yeah that’s gonna exist. But it’s an infinitesimal amount compared to pretty much any part of fossil fuels production.
Fossil fuels will never go away because we need them for other things but we can - and should - move away from using them as actual fuels.
[Edit] I am not downvoting you and I urge anyone reading this not to, either. We’re having a discussion and OP is not being uncivil.
I’ve also heard EVs were a suppressed technology with documentaries like “Who Killed The Electric Car?”
A centrist take might be that both are just technologies, gas and EV… I think EV could become more popular but there are problems: lack of current infrastructure for EVs, they take longer to charge (range issues), seems like there would be a loss of energy transmitting to a battery and then using it versus the direct use of energy by gas vehicles when they burn it, and so on.
Right now ebikes seem like an uncontested efficient vehicle versus gas vehicles, where they can replace a car commute
The “skepticism” I have toward oil and gas is based on evidence so it’s not at all comparable to the conservatives’ view on green energy which is based on…fear mongering I guess?
It’s actually surprising that you have this view… seems lacking understanding of the other side’s perspective? The conservatives would say you’re fearmongering that there’s a climate emergency that justifies needing “green tech” to solve it that’s not at all based on evidence. They would point to evidence that there have been many failed climate predictions: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/weve-had-six-years-left-to-save-the-world-for-the-past-50-years/
pumped hydro / sand
so is there somewhere I can buy them, or other consumers? So we can slowly begin the process of supplanting the “old tech” with the “new”?
plant billions of trees … no profit
I guess couldn’t you profit by selectively tearing down trees as they grow or harvesting from them as they grow (acorns or some thing that can be sold or wood?) to financially sustain such projects?
liquid and solid pollutants
Anything that could be done to mitigate these pollutants?
pollution from creating the solar panels…yeah that’s gonna exist
I think that’s probably a sticking point they’ll latch on to - “well solar pollutes too, so what’s the point?”
Fossil fuels will never go away because we need them for other things
Like a lot of the non-fuel uses? But could other plant-based plastics replace them?
The problems you described are the result of the oil/gas suppression. We’ve had no issues adding thousands of gas stations, why would it be so hard to set up EV infrastructure? It wouldn’t be - the industry just chose not to.
As for green fear mongering, you don’t even need to look at climate change to see the benefits of green energy. Fossil fuel is dirty and creates tons and tons of pollution - not just emissions as discussed. So what’s the downside to green energy if climate scientists are wrong? Cleaner air? Oil barons losing their power over government? It’s win-win. But still, there’s decades of evidence on the harm caused by fossil fuels. The other side of the debate says that not all of the predictions have come true as if none of them have come true. I don’t think the two are really comparable at all - it’s people wanting a healthier world vs people who only care about making money.
Pumped hydro and sand are large-scale solutions so you can’t really buy them yourself. They’re for replacing industrial energy storage, way too big for a single household. Check this link out for more info on the latter. For personal use, “traditional” batteries are used.
We already cut down more trees than we plant. If that solution was profitable, they’d already be doing it and we wouldn’t even be discussing green energy right now
Not much can be done about the byproducts of fossil fuel aside from burning less of it
Saying “solar pollutes so why bother?” Is a bit asinine as it ignores the amount of pollution each causes. I don’t have the hard numbers but I’d imagine the pollution from producing enough solar panels to replace a gas power plant is significantly lower than pollution caused by one month of burning said gas.
The non-fuel uses im referring to are things like coal for making steel and some plastics. There’s been a lot of progress in making plastic from plants but I haven’t seen anything with coal. Steel is will remain extremely important for a long time.
What should be done for the environment? Stop dependence on fossil fuels, stop dependence on plastics, stop capitalism’s push for ‘unsustainable constant and continued growth’ for starters maybe
I guess the question is why do you believe it (man-made climate change) is a thing?
we observe climates changing. There are however a lot of variables so it’s hard to tell what’s causing it (may not be manmade).
an alternative theory assuming man-made climate change is real: “they” are purposely creating changes to the climate, then offering destructive solutions. Maybe then we could cut out their destructive solutions as well as the causes?
I guess I view pollution as an actionable thing we can point to that is real and causes problems: microplastics being places, emissions from various industrial machines, spills like in East Palestine last year. There are often concrete remedies to those: using less plastics like you say (or biodegradable ones?), making machines with better emissions, reducing use of machines, improve safety protocols to prevent spills.
“Climate change” is kind of vague and it’s not clear what the actionable problem is to solve.
For example, “carbon emissions” was identified as a problem. And the solution then was planting a bunch of trees to capture the carbon. And now one guy has backpedaled on that plan and says we shouldn’t plant so many trees:
Seems like most people want to grow and that’s ok. It’s mostly a question of what happens when the oil runs out I guess, if that’s possible. I guess it’s just a question of what sustainability is and how much sustainability is needed.
CLINTEL was founded by an engineer from Shell and a journalist. They want to be a watchdog for climate science but they’ve already publicly made up their minds that climate change is not a problem.
The supposed-scientists who signed it did so using a form on their website. CLINTEL reviews signatures but does not reach out to vet the signers.
Another fun fact: The last time they asked people to sign this declaration, it was found that only 10 of the 500 signatures claimed to be climate scientists
Conclusion: I could not give less of a fuck about the climate opinions of an organization with ties to the oil/gas industry. It’s about as credible as the UAE saying they’re pushing for green energy
So I don’t think man-made climate change is really an issue or a thing but (ironically) I like the environment
so my question is more what do you think should be done to help the environment?
Clean energy. Green energy storage.
Pollution from oil and gas fucks the environment pretty hard even if you pretend it isn’t affecting the climate.
Ok so like how can the world transition to clean / green energy, got any info or thoughts?
Are you advocating for a massive reduction in consumption in order to be totally green?
Do you think this will be adopted naturally inevitably at some point when clean / green energy becomes affordable?
I’ve seen some people post complaints that lithium is often mined with slave labor and isn’t sustainable (we can’t recycle it yet). So is there a better thing we should use instead of that?
Can this destruction be mitigated?
I’m not advocating for anything as I’m not a climate scientist…but then again, most people on this CLINTEL declaration aren’t, either.
I think green energy would have already had mass-adoption if not for the lobbyists in oil and gas industries. It’s no secret they’ve been fighting the inevitable for decades in order to keep raking in the dough as their profits rely on control of the source energy…and the sun and wind are free so they don’t like it.
Yes there are tons of ways to store energy without lithium. Sand batteries and pumped hydro storage are continually proven successful. Lithium mining is an environmental concern but it pales in comparison
No, the destruction from oil/gas cannot be truly mitigated to any meaningful degree. It can be reduced but never eliminated…and even then, the industry is known to lie about it. Look no further than the chasm between their self-reported emissions and actual emissions.
this kind of seems doubtful. if it was cheaper then “capitalists” would just adopt it because it would save money. So at least some people are skeptical it is cheaper.
Thoughts on nuclear energy? Personally I am skeptical of it, it’s also risky.
the skepticism you have towards oil / gas industries lobbying is now how conservatives seem to feel about “green energy”, that it’s an inefficient scam being pushed by government and a “green industry”. Which leads me kind of split thinking maybe there are elements of either side that are correct. basically like fossil fuels are there so we’re probably going to use them until they run out, then people will be forced to switch; or economics will make people switch. So it’ll just sort itself out, but maybe some plans should be in place in case the techno-industrial system encounters energy shortages all of the sudden.
Again they must still not be thought to be costly or something. I’ve seen other alternative battery ideas like compressed air suggested… there’s some kind of disconnect though on why these things aren’t being used yet (not cost effective enough yet?).
Well I guess the idea is emissions can be countered with trees sucking in the bad polluted air and bringing out clean air. Is there anything like this process that holds up, or no? If green tech has emissions (in creating it), does this give some kind of justification to use the fossil fuels (the pro-gas industry might simply argue they emit more, but green tech emits, so who cares - this kind of thing?)
We had electric cars in the 70s before the oil industry (literally) crushed them. Solar advancements have been stifled by the same industry since the technology began…imagine if governments invested there instead of approving a thousand more oil rigs.
Cheaper for them doesn’t mean more profit. Like I said, they control the material required for energy creation - THAT’S the money maker. You can’t control the supply of solar and wind so you can’t control the prices. That is a problem for the capitalists in charge.
I think fission is better than fossil fuels but it’s not the perfect solution. I think fusion, when technology proofs it viable, will exist in tandem with green energy.
The “skepticism” I have toward oil and gas is based on evidence so it’s not at all comparable to the conservatives’ view on green energy which is based on…fear mongering I guess? Those industries have massive lobbies which have proven time and time again to be massive liars. This isn’t an opinion, it’s publicly-available information.
Pumped hydro and sand batteries are being used already, there just isn’t mass adoption. It goes back to my first point - there’s way less money to be skimmed off the top when an industry doesn’t have a monopoly. There is no reason to have these alternative batteries already out there when they’re not essential to fossil fuels production (they use “standard” storage technologies).
Sure, you could plant billions of trees to offset it…but there’s no profit there so they won’t do it. Emissions aren’t the only pollution coming from fossil fuels that poisons the environment. There’s liquid and solid pollutants coming out of those factories.
If you’re asking about the pollution from creating the solar panels…yeah that’s gonna exist. But it’s an infinitesimal amount compared to pretty much any part of fossil fuels production.
Fossil fuels will never go away because we need them for other things but we can - and should - move away from using them as actual fuels.
[Edit] I am not downvoting you and I urge anyone reading this not to, either. We’re having a discussion and OP is not being uncivil.
actually I’ve read we’ve had them for a century: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/04/overview-of-early-electric-cars-1895-1925/
I’ve also heard EVs were a suppressed technology with documentaries like “Who Killed The Electric Car?”
A centrist take might be that both are just technologies, gas and EV… I think EV could become more popular but there are problems: lack of current infrastructure for EVs, they take longer to charge (range issues), seems like there would be a loss of energy transmitting to a battery and then using it versus the direct use of energy by gas vehicles when they burn it, and so on.
Right now ebikes seem like an uncontested efficient vehicle versus gas vehicles, where they can replace a car commute
It’s actually surprising that you have this view… seems lacking understanding of the other side’s perspective? The conservatives would say you’re fearmongering that there’s a climate emergency that justifies needing “green tech” to solve it that’s not at all based on evidence. They would point to evidence that there have been many failed climate predictions: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/weve-had-six-years-left-to-save-the-world-for-the-past-50-years/
so is there somewhere I can buy them, or other consumers? So we can slowly begin the process of supplanting the “old tech” with the “new”?
I guess couldn’t you profit by selectively tearing down trees as they grow or harvesting from them as they grow (acorns or some thing that can be sold or wood?) to financially sustain such projects?
Anything that could be done to mitigate these pollutants?
I think that’s probably a sticking point they’ll latch on to - “well solar pollutes too, so what’s the point?”
Like a lot of the non-fuel uses? But could other plant-based plastics replace them?
thx for the non-downvotes :)
The problems you described are the result of the oil/gas suppression. We’ve had no issues adding thousands of gas stations, why would it be so hard to set up EV infrastructure? It wouldn’t be - the industry just chose not to.
As for green fear mongering, you don’t even need to look at climate change to see the benefits of green energy. Fossil fuel is dirty and creates tons and tons of pollution - not just emissions as discussed. So what’s the downside to green energy if climate scientists are wrong? Cleaner air? Oil barons losing their power over government? It’s win-win. But still, there’s decades of evidence on the harm caused by fossil fuels. The other side of the debate says that not all of the predictions have come true as if none of them have come true. I don’t think the two are really comparable at all - it’s people wanting a healthier world vs people who only care about making money.
Pumped hydro and sand are large-scale solutions so you can’t really buy them yourself. They’re for replacing industrial energy storage, way too big for a single household. Check this link out for more info on the latter. For personal use, “traditional” batteries are used.
We already cut down more trees than we plant. If that solution was profitable, they’d already be doing it and we wouldn’t even be discussing green energy right now
Not much can be done about the byproducts of fossil fuel aside from burning less of it
Saying “solar pollutes so why bother?” Is a bit asinine as it ignores the amount of pollution each causes. I don’t have the hard numbers but I’d imagine the pollution from producing enough solar panels to replace a gas power plant is significantly lower than pollution caused by one month of burning said gas.
The non-fuel uses im referring to are things like coal for making steel and some plastics. There’s been a lot of progress in making plastic from plants but I haven’t seen anything with coal. Steel is will remain extremely important for a long time.
How could you possibly not believe it’s a thing…?
What should be done for the environment? Stop dependence on fossil fuels, stop dependence on plastics, stop capitalism’s push for ‘unsustainable constant and continued growth’ for starters maybe
I guess the question is why do you believe it (man-made climate change) is a thing?
we observe climates changing. There are however a lot of variables so it’s hard to tell what’s causing it (may not be manmade).
an alternative theory assuming man-made climate change is real: “they” are purposely creating changes to the climate, then offering destructive solutions. Maybe then we could cut out their destructive solutions as well as the causes?
I guess I view pollution as an actionable thing we can point to that is real and causes problems: microplastics being places, emissions from various industrial machines, spills like in East Palestine last year. There are often concrete remedies to those: using less plastics like you say (or biodegradable ones?), making machines with better emissions, reducing use of machines, improve safety protocols to prevent spills.
“Climate change” is kind of vague and it’s not clear what the actionable problem is to solve.
For example, “carbon emissions” was identified as a problem. And the solution then was planting a bunch of trees to capture the carbon. And now one guy has backpedaled on that plan and says we shouldn’t plant so many trees:
https://www.wired.com/story/stop-planting-trees-thomas-crowther/
So, when people say “manmade climate change is a problem” do they really just mean “carbon emissions are a problem”? Some other people have said carbon emissions are not a problem: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming
Seems like most people want to grow and that’s ok. It’s mostly a question of what happens when the oil runs out I guess, if that’s possible. I guess it’s just a question of what sustainability is and how much sustainability is needed.