@randahl I saw someone yesterday say that solar and wind are just as “vulnerable” because so much of it is also shipped through the narrow straits of Malacca(?)…. Ignoring, or ignorant, of the fact that because the energy for renewables actually comes from the sun, only new or replacement solar/wind capacity would potentially be disrupted by this kind of shut down….

The sun would still shine and the wind would still blow, the rivers, magma, and tides would still flow, all no matter how many wars some idiot starts.

@chris @randahl

Oil and natural gas provide feed stocks for much more than just diesel and petrol.

sour crude extracted in the region is a primary source of sulfur. sulfur is a feed stock for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a chemical that’s used to extract and refine copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. Oil is an input to a lot of products.

Natural gas and sulfur are also feed stocks for fertilizer.

The global supply chain is the risk

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @randahl yes. “Non energy use” of oil is about 15% of the total 100 million barrels a day. It’s 12% of NG use. But the reason it is a global tool of blackmail and war is the other 85% which can be replaced by renewables and different ways of doing things.

Let’s stay focused on the main problem here. Which is the burning of fossil fuels.

@chris @randahl

If you don’t have feed stocks, eg sulfur or methane, you don’t have the global economy.

alternatives cost a lot more. After 20 or so iterations, 90% recycling you’re down to 10% of that resource.

We burn fossil fuels in order to destroy the planet. Swapping to renewables is still destroying the planet.

The different way of doing things is to re-localize economies and stop destroying the planet with a global economy

@Crissa @chris @randahl

You are engaged in exactly the thing I keep disputing with people. Because you are embracing the fallacy that the options offered to you and I by the global economy are the only options.

If we consider choosing to develop options that don’t rely on them, it is “going back to living in caves”.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

So you would be arguing or are arguing in essence cities like Amsterdam or Paris or even Seoul Korea that converted a freeway corridor into a walkable river area and park had to kill off half their population in order to “go back”.

You know the people who argue that? Big oil and big car.

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @chris @randahl
...You're not going to replace global trade and feed the world by creating walkable cities.

Walkable cities reduce oil and car use and massively increase living quality so yes more but it's not at all going to remove global trade. Or stop our need for recycling/renewables.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

I would not have suggested such. The point of reload colonizing farming is that it actually brings more food to table per acre. There’s research behind this. The other reason reason to do this is organic nutrient recycling.

A warmer environment will destroy global trade and communities restore their local food autonomy, especially those nations where their own food autonomy was deliberately dismantled by the WTO/etc in order to “open their economies”.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

People have to get their heads around the idea that the global economy is unfit for purpose in a warmer world that large scale and long-term investments will be destroyed by extreme weather.

Bio regionalism as it is called necessity, but also to disconnect from the system that’s burning the planet down. And if you want to blindly accept with big agriculture has been telling people for a few decades now which has repudiated, that’s your prerogative.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

But Southeast Asia has recognized that the green revolution is not sustainable. Nations like Indonesia, India, and others have realized that they need to have alternatives to industrial agriculture. They’ve already faced several deep crisis because of the war in Ukraine. They already realized that their own food security demands that they find different solution solutions.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

Lastly, a localized economy requires recycling. That is the requirement to be sustainable within a bio region.

As far as renewables go, you have to understand that they destroy the planet because of the resources, the iron, the concrete, the copper, the nickel, the lithium, the aluminum, and even the resources for silicon wafer, are extremely lethal, toxic resource extraction processes, and they have to grow exponentially

@Crissa @chris @randahl

So in order to build out an energy replacement for today’s economy, we would have to destroy the planet to do so.

And apparently people are perfectly happy to murder, indigenous populations, destroy entire forest and lead behind a toxic lethal pool that will poison the water supply for generations, on the premise that once everything is built once all this destruction has taken place. It’ll be recyclable.

@Crissa @chris @randahl

In other words, let’s obliterate the third world in order to keep today’s consumption in lifestyle the same. This is not a morally tangible stance.

In addition, if you achieve 90% recycling rate for let’s just say aluminum or any other material after 23 iterations you’re down to 10% of that resource.

All the buildout taking place now for solar/wind will need to be replaced in 20 to 25 years so sure you can recycle some things if it’s cheaper than killing the planet