3035 sats \ 7 replies \ @mallardshead 12 Sep 2023 \ on: “Climate” vs Environmentalism bitcoin
Climate change is a really nuanced subject, and too many people don't respect that reality on either side. The arguments mostly get distilled down to crisis narratives or conspiracies. Climate science combines many disciplines, and has its own idiosyncrasies, its own challenges, and paradoxes. You can always find a study, paper, or group of scientists willing to take a counterpoint on broad subjects. The total amalgamation of data over the last 100 years through multiple generations of scientists shows that the climate is in fact warming. My own basic observations would concur.
You're talking about the political noise surrounding it, and linking anecdotal examples, at least that's my initial reaction.
My advice for the climate skeptics would be to forget the impact fossil fuels may or may not have on climate change, dump the tautology, and follow the money and the data — not the twitter personalities, faux podcast experts, and low-grade politicians. A green transition is coming regardless. The question is this: where does your country want to stand in this transition? Do you want to be trying to sell buttons to touchscreen users? Because the biggest benefits will go to those who are many years ahead, not those trying to catch up after the fact, and yes, being early comes with big costs and risks. I'd offer bitcoiners the same advice.
Oil is no longer the fastest expanding form of energy. The economics of fossil fuels are starting to wobble relative to green energy. The petrodollar is dying. Middle-East theocratic monarchies are getting worried, nervously spending down their sovereign wealth funds on future-saving mega-projects, and even courting enemies for cooperation. The production possibility frontier is disastrous for these countries. We have insurance companies pulling out of climate impact zones all over, logistics reviewing all the new routes opening up because of warmer water, enormous amounts of private money (not government money) pouring into fusion, water management and infrastructure becoming a single focus in some countries and states even though their populations and industry haven't increased significantly. Solid state batteries are no longer sci-fi when just 4 years ago they were. And the list of data and direction of money is endless. Why is all this?
My issue with climate hysterics are the crisis narratives they push. A 3-degree temperature change will not extinct humanity in the next 50 years, and their projections make the assumption that technological innovation remains largely unchanged. You don't upend the entire current energy economy for the sake of technologies that are not yet mature. I would offer bitcoiners the same advice with fiat for the time being.
My issue with climate skeptics is they're like the people who conflate bitcoin with crypto at large and show no ability to understand nuance, so box it all together, consolidate the worst parts (like LUNA or FTX) to represent the whole thing, trot out a few tradFi economists to corroborate their bias, and deliver it neatly to their partisan lawmakers.
Fossil fuels are necessary for now, but represents a massive centralized marriage of government, big business, and war. I much prefer the self sovereignty of getting my energy from the sun, which I currently do. I have a backup generator that goes on maybe twice a month during extreme heat, but better batteries will solve this sooner rather than later. I'm going to do my best to guide you dear @sudonaka away from the travails of your political lean and into the dead center. Have some sats.
Actually you can take those sats right back because I am not in need of your charity or "guidance"
Since you seem unable to click a simple link and address the statement of 1,600 scientists regarding the lack of the supposed "climate emergency", I will boil down some arguments for you below:
-
The models that suggest Co2 and methane are warming the climate are not accurate.
-
"Green energy" is massively wasteful and totally bunk economically- it exists solely due to FIAT big gov subsidy.
-
Reducing the amount of Co2 in the air might lead to catastrophic death of plant life. (What is optimal? Not 450ppm?)
-
"Climate change" is natural and we are in a warming period in the earth's history.
Get back to me when you free your mind from statist propaganda.
reply
-
A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, so wether it's a natural period of warming or not (you agree there is warming), C02 and CH4 obviously exacerbate that. So what do we do?
-
How is green energy wasteful when my own green energy experience has saved me thousands of dollars over the last year+ relative to fossil fuels? With the added benefit of self-reliance, and not having to worry about what conflict, disruption, or printing scheme governments have gotten us into which alters a monthly KYC bill that I no longer have? I was told the break-even-point for my solar/battery setup would be 7 years. I did it in 3.
-
"Green energy" is massively wasteful and totally bunk economically- It exists solely due to FIAT big gov subsidy." Sudonaka, come on now my bitcoin brother, do you know what the federal and state subsidies of oil companies has been over the last several decades? Or that the fiat you mention is quite literally tied to, and reliant on, oil energy expansion, and is called the petrodollar?
reply
Of course the earth is warming. We are coming out of an ice age. (We are actually still in an ice age- there is still ice on the caps.) There is nothing to do, over the next few thousand years the earth will continue to trend back to an average temperature.
-do not mistake my opinion on Co2 with being against actual environmentalism, meaning; protect wildlife, limit pollution, clean rivers, etc.
https://imgprxy.stacker.news/c-EvyD-DQuzvBlf6BtjXlAcPELHeozhmDOeZxvQ18ZU/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBvc3RpbWcuY2MvcVJtMHpRTGcvR2xvYmFsLVRlbXAtSGlzdG9yeTEtNC5wbmc
Your power generation setup does not scale to grid level due to inconsistent delivery. That is not an argument. You are talking local level, which is totally successful and I'm happy for you. On the grid level it does not work, as we have seen in Texas during the winter storm when they needed extra power generation, wind and solar dropped off and people died from cold.
Your argument here seems to be that since all energy is subsidized, then it doesn't matter which energy source is the most cost efficient? Again, not a logical argument. The efficiency of coal and natural gas generation is economically positive, as is nuclear. The expense/revenue of grid-level wind and solar is not positive. This is why I explain that WITHOUT subsidy, there would be no wind and solar. Even though gas and nuclear do get subsidy, I argue that we invest in those sources of consistent energy for our grid in a post-fiat world.
reply
Wind and solar provide 30% of all of Texas' electrical power on any given day, on average. That number has gone up every year for a decade, and will go up faster with ERCOT's plans.
There's a bunch of reasons why bitcoin miners love the state so much, and one of them is that cheap flexload energy from wind and solar. You're going to tell us 2 freak weather events on an independent grid (Texas is the only state with its own grid) should disqualify the sun and wind from providing energy, which on average has helped create bills cheaper than half the US states? Baseload is still important, but its share is slowly being whittled away relative to any population or industrial growth.
You said my power-gen setup doesn't scale. That's not how it works though. It scales for every individual house, even some businesses, That means these properties are no longer drawing energy from the grid, and in most cases, are sending their excess power into the grid.
-
Speaking of Texas previously, the newest and most expensive energy project is the AES green hydrogen production facility that's powered by wind and solar. Again, it's a Republican state, follow the money and data, not the twitter or podcast political shills.
-
GERD (Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam) is a single piece of hydroelectric infrastructure that will provide more than 80% of the country's entire electrical demand, and lift half the country out of poverty. There's nothing intermittent about hydroelectric power, it functions as the best baseload energy source and is cost effective.
-
NEOM (the $500B Saudi mega-city project) will have the world's largest green hydrogen plant.
-
All the integrated oil majors (Exxon, Shell, etc) agree with the IEA that gasoline demand in the US peaked back in 2018 @ ~9m bpd. And get this, the refiners don't want to refine oil for gasoline and diesel anymore, but focus on petrochemicals for unrelated industries (petrochem is the only thing I'm invested in besides BTC).
Why is all this happening? Looking at the energy economy, don't you see the trends?
There's a fucking energy transition taking place dear @Sudonaka!
Follow the money and data, they'll tell you the story. Fuck the nonsensical political noise, god damn man, how do I get this into you?
You're looking at the world and green energy prices in snapshot, not over the x-axis (time). If you did, you'd see this leading into covid:
Green energy per megawatt hour is collapsing, it's done this since covid:
.
There's no way oil and gas will directionally compete with what the sun, wind, and water can do. Early innings, but we're making some real progress.
reply
You continue to accuse that my post was politically motivated without any reasoning or proof.
I am not suggesting we dismantle anything built so far or that government does anything at all actually. Let the market decide.
Yet you somehow assume anyone not panicking about boiling the oceans is a right wing conspiracy theorist.
Try rereading my original post and what the 1600 scientists have to say about your totalitarian and frankly genocidal delusions.
Good day.
reply
Ok fair point, but my reasoning and proof are perhaps your previous posts on various topics. Yes, maybe this is bias on my part. My point in saying follow the money, is to your point of letting the market decide, which I believe it has, and pretty clearly. I'm happy to take the points you offered and include them in my worldview. I'm always willing to update that as circumstances demand. It's always a pleasure talking and arguing with you. Now here's the original 1000 sats. Don't be rude, accept.
reply
reply