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?
oil / gas pollution
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.
green energy would have already had mass adoption
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.
electric cars in the 70s
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
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?
thx for the non-downvotes :)
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
unsustainable constant and continued growth
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
They’re posting to have discussion dipshit. Shut your fucking mouth if you have nothing to add to actually discourse here
deleted by creator
And ?
deleted by creator
Because CNN and whatever other else leftist circle jerk bullshit you deep throat on, is the correct news right ?
Listen up fuck face, I’m deleting comments because your retarded assess are saying stupid ass shit, instead of debating OP.
My news source? You’re a fucking idiot. How the fuck is a post from anothe fuckin person stating that it is my go to news?
Goddamn youre stupid. This community is for anyone who wants to join to post uh idk, news and current events?
Even your dumbass. You’re allowed to post whatever leftist garbage you belive like a blind fool (which all of you are) and it won’t be taken down
Because we don’t control the fucking narrative like you guys always do.
Knock it off. Get the fuck out of this community if you’re just going to be a complete fucking jackass and have nothing constructive to add.
I’m sick of y’alls attitude
deleted by creator
I have by this point seen enough of OP’s comment history to know that they’re much less interested in having an actual, good faith discussion than they are with sealioning and moving the goalposts once their terrible takes have been proven wrong.
P.S. you might want to raise the standard of your moderating if you want people to take your community seriously.
deleted by creator
actually this is a misunderstanding, I am mostly trying to (unintentionally) act as an intermediary between left and right in a way as I have heard both sides of arguments but frequently there’s no real conversation about each side; these kinds of articles are posted frequently on other sites where everyone is in agreement about them, but lemmy seems to have a slant of views in the opposite direction, hence discussion ensues (if people want to try to sort things out);
yet when some arguments are mutually exclusive then both sides cannot be correct, and so it would be good to try to work through disagreements to come to agreement ideally. or there is just posting of what is “normal” to the opposite side of lemmy apparently (maybe some people are unaware that this is considered “normal”?). The OP article is basically agreed on without question by tons of people who think “global warming is a scam”.
For example:
Only about one-third of Americans think climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is happening, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. And only about a quarter or less say climate scientists understand very well the effect climate change has on extreme weather, its causes and the best ways to address it.
There is growing skepticism about there being (manmade) climate change. !alice@hilariouschaos.com
Analysis of recent scientific publications finds widespread agreement among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of climate change.
As it very clearly demonstrates in the article you linked, the reason why climate skepticism still exists at all is political, not scientific.
Conservatives are much more likely be skeptical of climate change because media outlets like FOX News and Republican politicians give credence to their natural bias that everything is fine and there is no pressing need to adjust their lifestyles or personal convictions regarding the environment. Following the example of Big Tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars on think tanks, political donations, and recruiting scientists who would produce favorable research for them in an attempt to obfuscate and artificially manufacture public doubt regarding anthropogenic climate change to the extent that climate denial is virtually an entire industry unto itself.
The problem with trying to “both sides” everything is that there aren’t always two reasonable and equitable positions to take. Quite often, one side is just plain wrong.
basically the other side would say the same as you just reversed like a mad lib:
the reason why climate skepticism still exists at all is political
Yes, that’s exactly what the other side says: the reason “climate change alarmism” still exists is all political, not scientific. Since numerous predictions have been made and were incorrect: https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Liberals are much more likely to be skeptical of “climate realism” (let’s call the conservative position) because media outlets like CNN and MSNBC and liberal politicians cater to their natural tendency towards concern / precaution towards new development and the desire to make sacrifices for “the cause”.
Following the example of Big Pharma, the green tech industry has spent billions of dollars on groups / individuals who would produce favorable research for them in to artifically manufacture public support for the theory of manmade climate change; “climate alarmism” is virtually an industry unto itself - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
The problem with trying to “both sides” everything is that there aren’t always two reasonable and equitable positions to take. Quite often, one side is just plain wrong.
So, the question is how to sort out which side is in the right. I think a centrist take is that fossil fuels do pollute, but it’s a trade off many people are willing to make for faster technological progress. Once green tech is good enough, people could just transition to that; green tech is not at present efficient enough to overtake fossil fuel usage. Do you think this is the big thing holding green tech back? You might say it’s just lobbying… I understand that position, however the oil companies are also investing in green tech. I’ve looked in to consumer green tech solutions and… it seemed pretty unclear what a person should do if they wanted to be totally green (like, you might be able to buy costly things but it wasn’t clear if it would scale or be worth it). Like massive deindustrialization… is this the proposed solution of the left? The problem is also countries like China that don’t play by the rules, so I guess it can also be like a “prisoner’s dilemma”, or a game theory problem? What I mean to say is the U.S. could be greener and deindustrialize more and other countries like Russia and China could embrace the fossil fuels and get an edge and get ahead… I suppose that’s probably factored in as a component in considering if it’s worth taking the trade-off of green tech or not (geopolitical concerns).
I mean anyway personally I like green tech that gives me more personal freedom, so while I don’t really embrace it because I am concerned with “climate change” I am in to it for those reasons; I often find self-interest and what’s good for the environment ultimately overlap. Composting is basically making use of free resources that would otherwise be wasted, and so on.
Any thoughts on burning wood, which is renewable but also pollutes?
Any idea how to make progress on the discussion further?
edit: the other belief is that climate change / environmental regulations take away personal freedoms which make people weak and vulnerable; the thought is they’re not being pushed “in good faith” but just by corporations so that the corporations can benefit from these developments. A perhaps similar but distinct view is left and right are owned by the same people politically speaking (so it’s not always simply “fight the oil companies” because the green tech companies are destructive as well).
edit 2: I guess the question is specifically what do you want people to do? Like have you tried to incorporate green tech in to your life? I’ve found it seems costly, has maintenance issues… it doesn’t seem like a no brainer to switch to. Fossil fuels have potential issues but also a lot of positives to them, which is part of why they’re used.
As for u Mr private eye. You are no one of intellectual importance or have certified credentials in any political field.
So you can kindly shut the fuck up, and take your opinion and shove it up your ass
And you don’t?
deleted by creator
On opposite day
deleted by creator
