Report: 'Carbon Bombs' Are Poised To Screw Us Over Big Time (gizmodo.com) 269
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Oil and gas companies are gearing up to invest in so many new projects that they'll blow away potential progress to mitigate emissions and stop worst-case climate scenarios, says a new investigation from the Guardian. Why describe them as bombs? If completed, these projects would push climate change well past the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target that the Paris Agreement has set for the world. These projects would literally blow through our carbon budget, the Guardian reports.
But how will this be financed? Oil prices are currently sky high at the pump, and the two largest petroleum companies in the U.S. -- Chevron and ExxonMobil -- have raked in record profits. That means that large fossil fuel companies can bet on expansion projects that could dish even bigger payouts, the Guardian found. [...] The Guardian's investigation found that about 60% of these projects are already pumping, and Canada, Australia, and the U.S. are among the nations with the biggest fossil fuel project expansion plans. The commitment to these projects is pretty clear. Large companies, including Shell, Chevron, BP, PetroChina, and Total Energies, are set to spend over $100 million a day for the rest of this decade on creating projects in new oil and gas fields. This is despite the fact that we might be on track to meet 1.5 degrees of warming in the next four years. In an editorial follow-up to their investigation, the Guardian says "governments much find ways to promote the long-term health of the planet over short-term profit." They added: "There is no alternative but to force companies to write off the most dangerous investments."
But how will this be financed? Oil prices are currently sky high at the pump, and the two largest petroleum companies in the U.S. -- Chevron and ExxonMobil -- have raked in record profits. That means that large fossil fuel companies can bet on expansion projects that could dish even bigger payouts, the Guardian found. [...] The Guardian's investigation found that about 60% of these projects are already pumping, and Canada, Australia, and the U.S. are among the nations with the biggest fossil fuel project expansion plans. The commitment to these projects is pretty clear. Large companies, including Shell, Chevron, BP, PetroChina, and Total Energies, are set to spend over $100 million a day for the rest of this decade on creating projects in new oil and gas fields. This is despite the fact that we might be on track to meet 1.5 degrees of warming in the next four years. In an editorial follow-up to their investigation, the Guardian says "governments much find ways to promote the long-term health of the planet over short-term profit." They added: "There is no alternative but to force companies to write off the most dangerous investments."
Overuse of the word "bomb" (Score:5, Insightful)
First we had "bomb cyclones" which was neither bomb-like nor a cyclone, just a big winter storm. Now we have a "carbon bomb" which isn't even a sudden surge of oil and gas projects, just business as usual for oil companies.
Regardless of how one feels about fossil fuels, the over-use of the word "bomb" as an attention-getting linguistic device will have diminishing returns.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why describe them as bombs? If completed, these projects would push climate change well past the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target"
Seems appropriate to me.
Re:Overuse of the word "bomb" (Score:5, Informative)
Seems appropriate to me.
Why? Nothing has exploded or even changed rapidly. All this article is saying is that if all the reserves tapped by all the projects slated are fully extracted then we will likely exceed the 1.5C increase goal. However, if we are successful in reducing fossil fuel use then not all of the reserves in these projects will be extracted or at least they will be extracted over a much longer period than the article assumes.
The article's basic premise is wrong: the problem is not that oil companies are supplying our demand for oil it is that we have too much demand for oil. If we reduce our demand then the oil companies will naturally scale back projects and leave resources in the ground.
Re: Overuse of the word "bomb" (Score:2)
"the problem is not that oil companies are supplying our demand for oil it is that we have too much demand for oil"
Very much this. Oil and gas companies are bound to provide rising supply in response to rising demand. If they don't meet demand the result is energy shortages and rising energy prices that will affect poorer countries and lower income households first.
The demand for energy will rise in the foreseeable future, so the only solution is to de-incentivize energy sources that use oil and gas, and in
Re: Overuse of the word "bomb" (Score:2)
By that logic the previous decade of oil development has also been a "bomb", and the decade before that, and so on. It's all cumulative, given that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is hundreds of years. This "bomb" is just the latest contributor during a time when we pass a threshold that we've defined as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is sentient.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point! And here I thought it was just a cloud of gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you have not heard of the carbon "budget" of the atmosphere - just another of those pesky feed back loops.
The bomb is the fossil fuel project pushes things into the red as it were.. but then you don't really see a problem, do you?
https://public.wmo.int/en/reso... [wmo.int]
Re: (Score:2)
pushes things into the red as it were
Now that's an analogy that fits. When the temperature needle on your car gets into the red, your car is in serious trouble. It could literally destroy your engine. But no one would describe that situation as "bomb-like."
Re: (Score:2)
oh, those big winter storms are most definitely cyclones. just not warm-core tropical ones i.e. hurricanes. they're cold core baroclinic cyclones.
Putin is rubbing his hands (Score:5, Insightful)
The less oil the West produces, the more oil they have to buy from Russia and similar regimes. Whether those regimes actually paid the Guardian (as the makers of "Promised Land" were [businessinsider.com]), or whether the useful idiots are doing it for free, is not even all that important...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Putin is rubbing his hands (Score:2)
We don't have to do anything. The level of consumption in the west can be massively reduced. It would be painful, but it wouldn't require anyone to starve.
The transition as planned can only be implemented with a warlike mentality, war is fought with central planning and high selective inflation not with business as usual global capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
The less oil the West produces, the more oil they have to buy from Russia and similar regimes.
You could just use less oil instead.
Take the power away from all such regimes.
The high prices will incentivise alternatives.
The Phrase you're looking for (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil and gas projects don't externalise costs, the consumer literally setting the resulting product on fire does.
How about we tax fuel accordingly so people think about alternatives and we drive a reduced demand. Oil companies don't spend $100m a day on a project if they think they won't be able to sell the final product.
Re:The Phrase you're looking for (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we tax fuel accordingly so people think about alternatives and we drive a reduced demand.
Oil companies have literally induced demand. We'd hold a drug pusher responsible for their actions, why not the oil pushers?
Re: The Phrase you're looking for (Score:4, Insightful)
O&G are not the problem. You are.
Right, the problem isn't the multi-billion dollar oil companies that buy legislation and decide what forms of energy will be affordable for me, it's me, the guy who has to live in the world they create with their lobbying.
Are you fucking new? You sound like you're new here. Like, on this planet.
suicide (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the process isn't instant doesn't mean it isn't ongoing.
See also: Idiots who still smoke.
they don't burn the fuel though (Score:2)
These projects don't actually burn the fuel though.
stop blaming hte oil companies for things they arent doing.
Boom? More like a slow fizzle... (Score:3)
This is somewhat of an "over the top" article by the Guardian with a click-bait title.
I mean, what did they actually think the oil companies were going to do in the next decade, turn off the money faucets?
These are the same damn companies who covered up papers written by their own science bods - you know, that 40 years or more back, they knew where we were headed.
And you expect them to now "fess up" and starting turning off the faucet?
Furthermore, you expect governments to crack down on them and say "no, you can't do that" - well, we can only wish that would be the case.
I think we all know it isn't going to be the case. These companies hold the levers of power globally. They are deeply embedded into governments worldwide.
FFS, just look at Gazprom - what more do you need to understand here?
So, what is the solution?
I don't think there is one. We're fucked, it's just the time scale of that fuckery that is at question.
Re: Boom? More like a slow fizzle... (Score:2)
The real "Carbon Bomb" is China (Score:3)
China? WTF! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets do NOTHING because China!
Humans are so idiotic they let people get away with that; serves them right...
FACT: China makes everybody's shit and 1 reason we outsourced to them is the lack of regulations saved money, it's not actually all their pollution. The globalist race to the bottom is a big part of this. Freemarket religious cultists have been in charge.
Re: (Score:3)
You say: "Lets do NOTHING because China!"
This is not the argument at all. The argument is, don't try to do things which are completely ineffective. The argument is, if you are on the Titanic, and water is coming in, don't equip the passengers with teacups and tell them to start bailing.
It is not going to help.
The reason the measures currently proposed are ineffective is largely China. China is after all producing and burning more coal than the rest of the world put together. Its boycotted COP26. Its e
Re: (Score:3)
As someone in the UK who follows this quite closely...that's utter bullshit. The National Grid has indeed got those plans, and is not concerned about the transition to electric. I actually agree with quite a lot of what you wrote, but on the supposed inability of the UK to transition - UK is actually quite far ahead of most places in this, politicians or no politicians.
Germany, of course, h
Re: (Score:2)
If this is correct, the National Grid really having those plans, can you give a reference stating how much storage and of what kind is going to be required and deployed?
The country, if going to the Climate Change Committee projections, would need at least two weeks worth of usage in storage.
That will be increased usage, from EVs and heat pumps.
Lets say its about 40GW average in 2030. What are the plans for supplying that kind of power continuously, or storing to meet that kind of demand, for the inevitable
Re: (Score:3)
We also have the head of the national grid saying for some time now that 'baseload' in general not quite as valid an idea as it used to be. I would suggest listening to an interview with National Grid's head here [fullycharged.show]. Basically, the Grid understands there is change required and investment required, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Well. I looked at the NG document and came on this, and am not persuaded:
"Despite a huge increase in electricity storage capacity in the net zero scenarios, the energy it stores is dwarfed by that of hydrogen storage. In 2050 the capacity of electricity storage (excluding V2G) in each scenario represents 1.1%, 1.3% and 0.2% of the hydrogen storage capacities in Leading the Way, Consumer Transformation and System Transformation respectively (15 TWh, 12 TWh and 51 TWh). In Steady Progression we assume that n
Re: (Score:2)
I think what will happen in the UK is this. Either they will go renewable as planned. In that case they will have to drop heat pumps and EVs. And install huge amounts of batteries, or fudge it by huge amounts of natural gas backup.
Or they will go ahead with the heat pumps and EVs, in which case they will have to stay with conventional, in fact build out more.
What they are planning at the moment, to double demand and make supply unreliable, with a vague invocation of hydrogen in 2050, that's not going to
Re: (Score:3)
"Lets do NOTHING because China!" is totally one of the arguments; simplified.
See WhatAboutism (a Russian invention BTW, extremely popular over at Fox News.)
If you regulated commerce better, you'd not allow externalization and exploitation to circumvent local regulations. Ban slaves and slave labor but outsource to slaves outside jurisdiction (call them "reeducation camps") and outside oversight (plausible deniability.)
If you require Chinese sourced products to adhere to your local laws or get banned that
Re: (Score:2)
Better would we supply the Chinese cities with square miles of solar panels to help them develop, but that is apparently too much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they want their solar panels to work very well, they'll probably be working more on air quality soon enough.
Then pass a fucking carbon tax (Score:3)
I agree that we need to stop using fossil fuels and that oil and gas companies must be deterred from massively expanding their operations.
But that's why you pass laws making such investments less profitable, e.g., carbon taxes. *Anything* you do to stop new oil and gas exploration will raise the price so it's not like there is a choice here that doesn't impose greater costs on consumers.
What you don't do is leave it perfectly legal and inexpensive (on paper) to develop oil and gas mines, refuse to do anything serious to decrease usage (eg carbon tax) and then turn around and target the investments oil companies make as if they were engaged in some disgusting awful and immoral activity. Not to mention the moral hazard involved in having governments decide on an ad hoc basis what investments they want to publish.
A drug user who won't take steps to stop buying drugs doesn't really have any right to complain about the fact that their dealer keeps buying them from his supplier.
Re: (Score:2)
Or even better, have a carbon allowance. Each citizen gets a per-capita monthly carbon allowance to spend. They can either use it to buy fuel for their car, flights etc, or they can sell it to those who want to use more carbon.
Of course since this implies some kind of collective ownership of the 'resource' that is the climate, it will be shot down as communism and incompatible with the western ideals of having the freedom to blast around as much as you want in a private jet if you have the right parents.
Re: (Score:2)
That solution would end up being worse for everyone and unworkable. I appreciate the sentiment but we can do better. Simply take the money from the carbon tax and give it to those with less money.
If the issue is inequality, address it directly by giving money to those with less of it.
The individual carbon allowance idea won't really work since:
1) Some people need more carbon than others. Someone who lives in the midwest and has to heat and cool an old house as well as drive to work simply can't live on t
Re: (Score:2)
Effort to replace the Russian energy products? (Score:2)
Indian coal plans (Score:2)
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-... [phys.org]
They don't believe it, they are not going to reduce, they are positively planning on increasing. Like China.
Carbon Takeback Obligations (Score:2)
It's really about time to introduce Carbon Takeback Obligations.
The irony is that they won't even hurt the fossil companies...
https://carbontakeback.org/abo... [carbontakeback.org]
The truth: Nuclear or Carbon, pick one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Water is wet, etc (Score:2)
To summarize, The Guardian is reporting that their "investigation" has revealed that oil and gas producers have multiple projects in the works to produce oil and gas. They do it well and we need them to do it to meet both our current and future global energy and petrochemical needs.
Since this would normally elicit a yawn The Guardian has chosen to call it a "Carbon Bomb" to work up the anxiety ridden.
I think we need an investigation on the causes of the "Anxiety Bomb" that has led to a massive increase in
Record Profits? (Score:2)
1. Gas prices are high ... lower gas prices and return profits to something more normal so inflation that is affected by gas prices goes down?
2. Posting record profits
3. People are suffering at the pump because of the high prices
4. Solution
Am i missing something? Or is this just a "Yay. Go Capitalism ... " moment?
Amazing a lack of economics education causes (Score:2)
Secondly, the far lefties, namely the goon squad and the rest of their ilk, push taxes on O&G, but are doing it at American wellhead. That is about as stupid as you can.get. it simply discourages dri
Shooting yourself in the foot (Score:3, Insightful)
Environmentalists with no coherent plan for energy demand and no solutions other than take away and "no pain no gain" are shooting themselves in the foot. All of the open ended demands for OTHERS to make fundamental changes to their lives because you say so will not only never work they will only backfire.
This is a very good strategy if your goal is to alienate people and ensure there will not only never be consensus for constructive solutions but to expect a large group of people who will actively work against anything constructive and even seek out dirty fuel and energy inefficiency on purpose because now you have effectively declared war on them. A BEV? Not just no but would not be caught dead with one and lets go coal rolling just to spit in the face of people who do.
Neither is crying to government the answer. Governance by consent only allows for the beating down of outliers not overriding sentiments shared by a substantial proportion of the population. All pretending otherwise does is promote illegitimacy. Despite all the virtue signaling and wishful thinking to the contrary humanity is inherently selfish. The degree to which people care about others depends entirely upon the degree to which charity negatively affects themselves.
Energy companies would not be investing in more dirty energy if they didn't see a return on investment. They are entirely soulless creatures of the markets who respond to demand. If they didn't see a profitable future in it they would not be making capital expenditures on hydrocarbon extraction. They would either shift to whatever is profitable or die like the coal industry.
What if instead all the Gretas of the world traded in their big mouths for STEM educations and worked on ways to lower the cost of energy storage by an order of magnitude? What if instead of attacking cheap energy people worked on new ways to better and more cheaply meet demand? Instead of making it about austerity and pain vs "saving the planet" why not direct the energy to provisioning what is needed?
A hydrocarbon free future means not simply meeting existing energy demand but dramatically exceeding it. The vast majority of new energy is already green energy. This isn't because of environmentalists it's because green energy has the least cost.
To quote Greta "blah blah blah" the US government despite all political talk and environmentalism can't even bring itself to end tens of billions of taxpayer dollars yearly funneled into subsidies for hydrocarbon extraction. If people were smart shit like this would be their political targets not making new enemies by telling everyone to get over accepting a lower standard of living which is effectively what happens when you intentionally throw a wrench in production.
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:3)
Russia can do whatever it wants in isolation using vacuum tube electronics. China will do whatever it needs to keep trade open.
If the transition timescale is economically feasible at all, dragging trading partners along only requires political will to stop listening to economists who see protectionism around every corner and implement carbon border taxes.
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:3)
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:4, Insightful)
Russian oil and gas used in Europe still counts as emissions. How we actually sidestep this is by outsourcing manufacturing to countries like China. This allows us to cut emissions within our borders but not actually shrinking our carbon footprint.
Re: (Score:3)
Either you need a "sarcasm" tag or a "dunce cap".
Not sure which.
YOU need the "dunce cap" - the sarcasm was so obvious that anyone requiring a sarc tag for clarity is more than a little thick.
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:3)
Unfortunately, we do rely on Russia for some seriously high tech stuff. For example, the REBCO table used by Commonwealth Fusion Systems for their superconducting magnets comes from a Russian company. Iâ(TM)m sure weâ(TM)ll figure out a way around it, but donâ(TM)t assume that *everything* in Russia is vacuum tubes and string.
Re: (Score:3)
burning dung for fuel, which is much more dangerous for humans and deadly to the planet.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
burning dung for fuel, which is much more dangerous for humans and deadly to the planet.
Citation needed.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider it deadly to the planet (other than if someone were to plan massive production increases of it), but it is not very healthy for the people burning it [www.epw.in] due to the gases and particles produced during burning.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the energy density is so much lower and dung contains everything that went through the animal... so you're making every toxin it encountered airborne.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the energy density is so much lower and dung contains everything that went through the animal... so you're making every toxin it encountered airborne.
Yeah, but that will kill the humans. The planet doesn't care, it'll still be here, almost certainly with a load of microbes, in a million years, even if it's uninhabitable and all the creatures are dead. So we ask again: "why anyone would consider it deadly to the planet"?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, don't be pedantic... you know precisely what is meant by that phrase...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, don't be pedantic... you know precisely what is meant by that phrase...
Yes, what is meant by that phrase is that it will render the atmosphere uninhabitable. But since it won't do that, it's a lie, and a stupid lie at that. We don't need more stupid lies on Slashdot. We already have Qanon dildos who still don't realize Qanon was created on 4chan as part of an ARG.
Re: (Score:2)
People breathing smoke from open fires in their houses, powered by carbon neutral energy source, aren't contributing to climate change, right?
That's a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
However oil companies would very much like you to blame poor people in the third world and not the oil companies who are fighting tooth and nail to stop us from moving our infrastructure over to wind and solar. They're laughing at you right now
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the oil companies. memory_register suggests building nuclear reactors... As a solution for emissions from the third world. Does it sound like a sensible idea to get countries that are already experiencing poverty to build extremely expensive nuclear power plants, and hope they get the skills and institutions necessary to operate them safely in place?
Re:I'm never voting Democrat again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"tax revenue" isn't profit, it's revenue. It's right there in the name. Profit would be what we call a "budget surplus". And margins are not the question; profits are. And Exxon, for example, has more gross profits in the 12 months ending in March 22 than they have in any 12 month period since 2015. [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:3)
"tax revenue" isn't profit, it's revenue. It's right there in the name. Profit would be what we call a "budget surplus". And margins are not the question; profits are. And Exxon, for example, has more gross profits in the 12 months ending in March 22 than they have in any 12 month period since 2015. [macrotrends.net]
Good for them. They produce something the world needs that is in high demand.
Re:Tell that to the third world (Score:5, Informative)
Is burning dung really more deadly for the planet? I'd love to see a source on that. Dung is carbon from the carbon cycle; fossil fuels are stored carbon in the ground. Only the latter adds to the amount of carbon that's circulating in the world.
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:2)
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:2)
Why would Russian extraction capacity die? India has openly declared it will buy discounted Russian fuel, China might as well buy some, the rest can be pawned off in the black market.
Re: (Score:2)
We still have 1 Billion people burning dung for fuel, which is much more dangerous for humans and deadly to the planet.
Nowhere near as deadly for the planet. But wood fumes are certainly safer to breathe for humans. The problem is access to wood.
Perhaps we should accelerate the path through the fossil fuels instead of acting like we can legislate them away?
We don't need to accelerate the path through steam power, we just go around. What makes you think fossil fuels is different?
We're not going to legislate big corporations, who by the way provide the fuels our lives run on [...]
I consume a lot of electricity, but my live doesn't run on fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who hangs out in the 3rd world quite often, I don't think anything will happen. Take the Philippines, the main transport is Jeepneys, which are basically 1940s tech trucks, with all the emissions that entails and all the light weight you'd expect from people welding up their own vehicles (i.e. none). Forget about electric, just getting these people into relatively low emission low fuel consumption vehicles would be a major step, but nothing will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who hangs out in the 3rd world quite often, I don't think anything will happen. Take the Philippines, the main transport is Jeepneys, which are basically 1940s tech trucks, with all the emissions that entails and all the light weight you'd expect from people welding up their own vehicles (i.e. none). Forget about electric, just getting these people into relatively low emission low fuel consumption vehicles would be a major step, but nothing will happen.
While that is true, with the amount of people in a jeepney this would still be better than a "lightweight" SUV transporting a single person for a much longer distance when looking at each person's transport carbon footprint. That said, improving jeepneys would be great (but please keep the interesting decorations :).
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We still have 1 Billion people burning dung for fuel, which is much more dangerous for humans and deadly to the planet.
More dangerous for humans? Sure. Deadly to the planet? Not remotely when compared to burning fossil fuels and releasing sequestered carbon.
Put everyone you can on natural gas,
done
open tons of nuclear SMRs
They don't exist. You can't "open" them. If you were to open them you'd have a containment problem. People keep trying SMRs and they never pan out. These ones probably won't pan out either. They never make economic sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't our best option to lean into this problem more proactively?
if only we could burn corporate buzzwords for fuel
Re: Tell that to the third world (Score:2)
HOWEVER, it is nasty AND harmful to the humans burning it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wind and solar electricity deployments have dwarfed everything fossil for years now. And sorry buddy, big corporations are not going to Russia or China.
No in terms of energy produced, they haven't.
Re:Tell that to the third world (Score:4, Interesting)
No in terms of energy produced, they haven't.
And more important in terms of energy delivered. In Scotland there's a huge quantity of wind energy available. Since a big chunk of UK energy is nuclear and inflexible, this ends up doing load balancing and shutting down so that the nuclear systems don't overload the UK grid. At the very same times that Scotland is deliberately reducing it's wind power output, Germany has been burning gas.
Many of the EU underwater transmission projects are tiny (less than 2GW) compared to the projects built elsewhere (up to 12 GW). That's the thing that really needs fixed.
Re: Angely Mercado (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that affects her analysis how?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she's biased against for-profit corporations for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she's biased against for-profit corporations for one.
So? Its not enough to point out that she has a bias. You need to point out where that introduces a flaw in her argument.
Ultimately everyone has a set of biases (e.g. for/against for-profit, how egalitarian a society should be, for/against public transport etc.etc.) - it doesn't mean that everyone has to be wrong.
Re:Angely Mercado (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically you're using a logical fallacy. I forget which one but I'm sure one of the pendants around here will be happy to chime in on it now that I pointed it out
Re:Angely Mercado (Score:5, Funny)
Pedants
Re: (Score:2)
Pedants
You found one. The bate worked perfectly.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about how fucking horrible communism is for a minute. Because it's horrible.
Now imagine how awful uncontrolled capitalism must be for people to hear about communism and think "sounds like an upgrade to me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nothing wrong with being a Marxist.
That's up there with there's nothing wrong with being a nazi or a fascist. Yes, it's wrong. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the data is bad... it's more likely that the conclusions of actions are a bit off. After all, the old communist block was the most environmentally destructive regimes to this date.
Re: (Score:2)
There is definitely something wrong with being a nazi or a fascist. Marxism doesn't require a violent revolution (although in practice it has often followed that path).
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is folks, the "it's not real Marxism" argument. Seriously, we need to come up with a catchy name for the corollary to Godwin's law where every mention of communism or Marxism triggers this "it's not/wasn't real Marxism" apology. I recommend the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In real world on the other hand, Socialism is a system of governance based on Marxist ideology directly. Communism, Fascism and Nazism are evolutions in different directions from Socialism that started from discovery that in real life Socialism is impossible to make functional due to it being an anathema to most of humanity due to natural human tendencies like those of "valuing individuals and relations closely related to them more than relations with strangers". It is quite common for a delusional intellig
Re: Angely Mercado (Score:2)
the concept of Marxism is nice in theory but fails big time .
Re: (Score:2)
We already can't afford gas
Wow, its almost like suburbia is untenable.
Re: (Score:2)
Price gouging does wonders for the available supply. Are you sure there wouldn't be a shortage if prices were lowered?
Re: Oh no, record profits! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If your definition of capitalism is "supply and demand", then necessarily life itself is responsible. Because the entirety of evolution for all species on this planet is defined by those two factors.
I'm reminded of a recent interview I've seen with one of the great primatologists who stated that to study primates he tried to live on their diet, since it was fully human edible in weight correct amounts.
He quickly found that he couldn't really do anything because he was half hungry and half starving all the t
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power wouldn't have saved us. It's a bigger problem. Aside from the fact we'd run out of fuel for that... got to keep the good stuff for bombs... Sure, new whatever in 5 years... 30 years of that BS. USA was the #1 in uranium and now it's imported and we squabble over wrecking national parks for the tiny bit left.
We are growing in energy demand FASTER than we are adding alt energy. It's way too late now for nuclear, we don't have time to build them all. Then you have dams drying up...
This mess is
No they didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody has anything against nuclear power. Nobody.
What people who are actually capable of sound judgement on the issue do assess, is that Nuclear Fission as we know and do it - currently our only known way to tap nuclear power, isn't cost efficient.
Get it into your thick scull:
Contemporary nuclear fission is a no-no. We can use existing fission plants still good for use to buffer a transition to renewables and saving and we should rather than building new coal plants, but nuclear fission is a techno romanti
Re:Anti-Nuclear Activists Left World Only Bad Choi (Score:4, Insightful)
Our best hope at providing non-carbon generating power was nuclear fission
That was before we found out it was a boondoggle.
Yes, there are risks but what's more important controlling global temperature rise or deactivating and preventing new construction of nuclear plants.
False dichotomy is stupid. It's cheaper to build production with renewables, and faster too.