Ketan Joshi1d ago

A GENTLE REMINDER: we are trying to eliminate fossil fuels because using them kills us.

If fossil fuels were cheap (they're not) or reliable (they're SO NOT), it would still be urgent to get rid of them because their intended use destroys our life support systems.

Even if we were unaffected (we're VERY NOT), it'd still be incumbent on us not to kill future generations of people by burning completely avoidable 19th century compressed plant matter today.

Show threadCAFCA47
@ketan
Maybe so but have you reflected on the 6,000 or so items that are derived from petrochemicals in daily use, including the plastics on the device we are using for our posts?
Crude oil extraction serves many purposes other than transport.
Apr 10 at 7:48amWeb
Show threaddasgrueneblatt23h ago
@CAFCA47
Yes, I have. That is (a) another very good reason not to just burn the stuff for a brief moment of heat, and (b) largely also very avoidable with materials already available today. Plastics are just way too cheap.
@ketan
Show threadtribactam21h ago
@dasgrueneblatt @CAFCA47 @ketan I am not sure about point 1. While chemically possible, it isn't so easy to make the hydrocarbons which have many uses beyond combustion. As far as point 2: taking out drivers of plastic production that you mention, while the volumes used may be insignificant, the products made such as modern pharmaceuticals are not.
I don't think apathy is the argument, I think it's about getting people to realise where their energy and stuff comes from. Most people have no clue.
Show threadiwein21h ago

@CAFCA47

1. no molecule produced by the petrochemical industry cannot be produced in another way,
2. Useful non energy related use of petrochemicals is insignificant (excludes single use plastic, fast fashion, and other such useless crap)
3. Even if 1, and 2 were not true, would you happily kill future generations for your comfort?

What are you arguing _for_ here exactly, apathy?

@ketan

Show threadAmorpheus21h ago

@iwein @CAFCA47 @ketan How to explain the sense of self-preservation of a frog.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=128fp0rqfbE

The “myth” of the boiling frog

YouTube
Show threadCAFCA4720h ago
@iwein @ketan
That may well be so but if I had a £/$ for every time I’ve heard ‘it must be possible’ in my lifetime I’d be extremely wealthy.
Ignorance is key to this & reliance on existing means too well established.
Scaling up of alternatives a possibility but e.g. here in the U.K. it’s gone very quiet about replacing natural gas with hydrogen for residential heating or freight transport.
Show threadiwein18h ago
@CAFCA47 why would you argue for apathy? What's there to gain with that?
Show threadtribactam21h ago

@CAFCA47 @ketan The figure is about 13% of fossil fuels are used as feedstocks.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52434-y

This is far too precious to burn!

Unaddressed non-energy use in the chemical industry can undermine fossil fuels phase-out - Nature Communications

The chemical sector is both hard-to-abate and hard-to-defossilize. This study shows how limiting the availability of alternative carbon feedstocks impacts climate goals and efforts to phase out fossil fuels.

Nature