Ketan Joshi21h 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 threadCAFCA4720h ago
@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.
Show threadiwein

@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

Apr 10 at 9:44amWeb
Show threadAmorpheus17h 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 threadCAFCA4717h 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 threadiwein15h ago
@CAFCA47 why would you argue for apathy? What's there to gain with that?