Banning Fossil Fuels Will Make Heat Waves More Dangerous, Not Less \ stacker news ~econ

Banning Fossil Fuels Will Make Heat Waves More Dangerous, Not Less mises.org/mises-wire/banning-fossil-fuels-will-make-heat-waves-more-dangerous-not-less

277 sats \ 56 comments \ @Undisciplined 26 Jun econ

By Connor O’Keeffe

Environmentalists insist on banning fossil fuels and refrigerant gasses in order to end heat waves. That means even more heat-related deaths.

view all related items

115 sats \ 1 reply \ @wingalt 27 Jun

Hydrocarbons are not just energy, it is medicines, food, materials, banning fossil fuels is bringing us back to the middle ages. Why don't environmentalists try it first and let us know how it goes?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

I often advocate for statists to try it first amongst themselves and let the rest of us know how it went.

98 sats \ 26 replies \ @Coinsreporter 26 Jun

So true! I also believe that air conditioners are far more dangerous than using fossil fuels for our veichles. Also, if veichles are run on batteries. What about those tons of waste it produces and make environment more unhealthy.

Planting more and more trees is the safest and simplest way!

66 sats \ 24 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

It's very unclear whether or not alternative energy sources actually have lower environmental impacts. However, it's very clear that they're more expensive and less reliable.

Can you expand on your point about air conditioning being dangerous?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 27 Jun

Biggest issue with renewable tech (wind and solar specifically) is the minerals that they need and the plan inability or toxic issues with recycling the wind turbines/solar cells

21 sats \ 22 replies \ @Coinsreporter 27 Jun

That’s all to say that it’s hard to overstate how much the world we all live in depends on our ability to control our indoor climates , regardless of the outdoor temperatures. But these systems (ACs) rely on two central components: energy and refrigerants (CFCs). And both of these components have come under attack from environmentalists and their allies in government.

The article actually mentions my point. If not, here is UNEP—

Cooling is a big contributor to global warming. Much of the existing cooling equipment uses hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases, and use a lot of energy, making them a double burden for climate change.

32 sats \ 21 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

Yeah, AC is highly energy intensive. It's probably a net benefit to society, though.

21 sats \ 17 replies \ @Coinsreporter 27 Jun

What about HFC? Isn't it much more dangerous than CO2?

32 sats \ 16 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

I don’t consider CO2 to be dangerous, so it’s not hard for something to be more dangerous.

The problem I associate with HFCs is ozone depletion. I haven’t heard them discussed as significant greenhouse gases before.

21 sats \ 7 replies \ @Coinsreporter 27 Jun

I also don't consider CO2 as problem if we can plant our planet the same as 100 years ago..

HFCs for ozone depletion was a fluke so there's no discussion about it at all.

The most commonly found hydrofluorocarbon is 3,790 times more damaging than carbon dioxide (when spread over a 20 year period).

https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/what-are-hydrofluorocarbons-and-why-do-they-matter

32 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

I’m extremely skeptical of these sorts of statements. “Social cost” calculations usually combine highly dubious science with completely nonsensical economics.

That said, if it’s toxic at all, then it is vastly more dangerous than CO2.

view replies

11 sats \ 7 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Jun

This is so 1980s

21 sats \ 6 replies \ @Coinsreporter 27 Jun

You're right. What do you think of rising temperatures globally? How can we combat it? Do we really need to worry or let everything as it is?

view replies

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Jun

California grid shuts down when everyone uses AC simultaneously

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

The California grid shuts down whenever someone sneezes.

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Jun

💯

A sneeze is a carbon emission?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 27 Jun

Sadly the studies and even the guy behind the study for Trillion Trees has since reversed his comments about trees being able to really have a significant effect in quickly changing things.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 27 Jun

Whenever I think of environmentalists I think of this

42 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 26 Jun

I don't understand how the banning fossil fuels makes heat waves more dangerous. I couldn't find any recent data, but from what I've seen, the percentage of fossil fuels used in homes seems to be small.

53 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 27 Jun

It not only deals with baseload power like people have commented but yesterday there was even an article about how burning fossil fuels has a super ironic effect and that is global cooling at the same time. The air pollution which it causes off set between 40 and 80% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases (think the cloud creation and how those particles reflect light).

We have already seen the effect of removing sulfur from marine gas oil. Sulfur was huge in seeding clouds over the ocean and the leading theory behind the ocean rapidly warming so much last year goes to that was the first year internationally sulfur fuel was illegal/phased out. It wasn't expected to have that effect but now NOAA and other leading ocean researchers believe that might have played a huge role because cloud coverage suddenly plummeted.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Jun

That's a great point. Although, my guess is the additional health costs from that pollution outweighs the hypothetical costs of that foregone heat.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 27 Jun

Its a big catch 22 ideally you would prep for heat while weaning off but that isn't what is really happening so a lot of people are going to suffer/die from heat related issues while also to some extent still suffering from pollution.

While the marine industry/policy makers wont go back and flip their choice I bet they wish they did. With the oceans heating up so fast not only is it putting ungodly pressure on fisheries but it is supercharging hurricanes and typhoons which themselves deal crazy amounts of death and destruction.

I am sure there is a middle ground but I am not sure where it is.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

But if the goal is to avoid heat-related deaths, the worst thing to do is ban fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, through technologies like air conditioning and refrigeration, make us safer from heat waves like those experienced last week.

Cheap baseload power makes these technologies affordable for many people.

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 26 Jun

Does the article refer to air conditioning in fossil fuel cars? I'm not sure about the US, but here air conditioning in homes is all electric. Some have oil heating, though.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

The most affordable energy source for generating electricity is fossil fuels, in most cases.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 26 Jun

Alright, that's not the most common way we do it here in Europe, but you're right. Thanks for the clarification.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-fossil-fuels

72 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

Right, but your electricity is very expensive. The developing world (where they have heat waves) can't afford to run AC at European energy prices.

42 sats \ 16 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

Banning fossil fuels is not only foolish but evil.

76 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

Banning almost anything is evil. Are you thinking this is more so, because so much human wellbeing is only possible because of hydrocarbons?

100 sats \ 14 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

Yes, banning anything is evil. But the opportunity costs lost by the poor that will not have the same access to better energy will have terrible impacts on their lives. Far greater from where I sit than the assumed impacts of climate change.

I'm not scientist but hearing Bob Murphy use the UN's own reports to show that their actions will make almost no impact on climate change but will impact global economic growth is really enough to pull the veil away. These people pushing for this are evil. Not the foolish but well meaning plebs. Talking about the elites. They don't care about humanity but veil their desire for control in moral terms that are false.

California has passed a ban on IC cars.... why? Posturing. Its absurd.

Its like the people that seem to be concerned about homelessness yet have policies that increase the cost of building housing and reduce the supply of housing. Their policies directly result in the opposite results they claim to care about.

120 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

I used to believe that the people in power were just ignorant or wrong. Now I believe they just do not care. They are not interesting in logic, reason, and principles. The only care about gaining and keeping power. I witnessed this during Covid when the elites didn't even try to hide their hypocrisy. Its not that they are just wrong. Its that they don't even care.

This goes for both parties. Even those that have good ideas. If they do not see a path to power they will drop good ideas. I've heard this from former politicians and people that have worked with them. Why would a politician fight for something that will cost them an election. If the public is brainwashed what hope is there of getting your ideas across.

There are VERY few exceptions to this rule. Ron Paul being the main one. There are some current people but only time will tell with them. Massey seems pretty based but who knows.

86 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

I agree on Massie. I think Amash was also on, but now he's gone, which speaks to your point.

63 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

I while back I heard Bob Murphy tell a story about when decided to focus on education over policy. Apparently he wrote up an excellent plan for some politician to put into practice. The politician and his chief of staff were in favor of it but the political advisor explained it would the end of his political career. Bob decided to shift his focus to teaching vs. policy advising. That should tell you something.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

Amash did an interview with Michael Malice right around the time he left office. It was pretty instructive on the problems with public office.

And it aligns with what Massey and Paul say.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @erict875 27 Jun

I used to believe that the people in power were just ignorant or wrong. Now I believe they just do not care. They are not interesting in logic, reason, and principles. The only care about gaining and keeping power. I witnessed this during Covid when the elites didn't even try to hide their hypocrisy. Its not that they are just wrong. Its that they don't even care.

A entity with a monopoly on violence loses its intrinsic control mechanism, and any motivation to follow logic or morality.

106 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

I know people who do research related to climate change. It's a weird brain slug type phenomenon where they don't even internalize the very information that they produce in their own work.

They know, for instance, that the climate in America is becoming more suitable for agriculture, but they still get angry when that's mentioned and proceed to blather on about climate disasters that don't exist and they can't name. They'll write about extreme drought in the abstract of a paper that actually shows lessening drought. They'll talk about adverse climate shocks when their results show benefits. It's very strange.

The point, though, is that they aren't being disingenuous. They're in a cult and can't think straight. They know what they're supposed to say and they say it, but they also know how to do empirical research and they do that, too. I guess it's just very compartmentalized.

If you go high enough up the ladder, are there people who know it's fake and peddle it anyway? I suspect there aren't many. I don't think those people care one way or another and if the scientists below them say it's true, they probably don't question it.

63 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

That makes sense.

I've also seen the inverse. Conservatives will reject an idea that is just good for everyone if it is branded as "environmentalism". I've seen this with regenerative farming. Which is literally just lower time preference more natural and sustainable farming. I get opposing the state forcing things but I don't get opposing the ideas that seem to have great results where they are tried. Its a mental block. I have never met someone that wants dirty water, destroyed soil, and polluted air.

This is one of the tools the elites use to divide and conquer.

55 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

You'll know this more intimately than I do, but the intersection of conservatives and agriculture is fascinating. No one champions the application of hyper-novel chemicals and genetic modifications, over traditional practices, like "conservative" farmers.

42 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 26 Jun

100% and its easy to understand.

Results. Results beat philosophy all day every day for most people. Most people aren't guided by their principles or rather they do not connect the principles they have with their actions. Especially when it affects their bottom line.

The other side though is watching more farmers adopt these regenerative practices because of market demands. Most of the farmers I know think organic and these labels are nonsense. And to a certain extent they are right. The labels have all kinds of loop holes.

The other thing is conservatives are not really conservative. They are just less bought in to the state than progressives. But they are more than happy to adopt change if it makes money or they like it. They will be for welfare if it benefits them. They will support big government if they believe it is pushing their values. Honestly, its maddening to listen to the logical loops they get in.

55 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Jun

Absolutely, but the funny part is that they treat organic farming practices as though they're the newfangled intervention and we've been farming mutants with industrial chemicals forever.

I think it is psychologically important to many of them to believe that they are defending the traditional practices against artificial change.

view replies