uncontrolled burns aren’t run through catalytic converters or whatever the powerplant-level remediation is called. this is worse than burning it properly unless the total amount is way less, enough to cover all the extra emissions from increased military activity. the upshot is if it causes a long-term change in energy generation and iran’s reparations depend on the oil flowing again eventually.
Total amount is way less. This is how the oil world dies, in flames. It’s the only way forward, we have to rip the band aid off. There is no peaceful transition away from the oil reich.
Upcoming oil shocks will destroy the world economy and total consumption will collapse. We might have another world war where even more energy infrastructure is wiped out. China (the winners of the world war) will help rebuild the world from the ashes with clean energy. The table is set.
premise: China will rebuild the world with clean energy
premise: oil reduction will devastate the world economy
premise: oil consumption will reduce.
Oil reduction has already been hit. Energy markets are in chaos. Demand reduction has already occurred. Many people, like myself, are buying solar panels, EVs, electric scooters, electric bikes, battery systems, etc. The source of this is China.
The EU went from being over a decade behind their emissions targets to being over a decade ahead. A leap of 25 years in a short timespan.
I understand it is depressed now but as an example we saw incredible changes in emissions during the better period of shutdowns when governments were willing to take COVID seriously and that was near instantly discarded and reversed.
It is hopeful but not serious to claim that the behavior during this time is permanent without some substantial support.
The emissions caused by all those systems going up in flames, to say nothing of the munitions used to cause that, are pretty bad though.
One time versus ongoing. It’s a net reduction
uncontrolled burns aren’t run through catalytic converters or whatever the powerplant-level remediation is called. this is worse than burning it properly unless the total amount is way less, enough to cover all the extra emissions from increased military activity. the upshot is if it causes a long-term change in energy generation and iran’s reparations depend on the oil flowing again eventually.
Total amount is way less. This is how the oil world dies, in flames. It’s the only way forward, we have to rip the band aid off. There is no peaceful transition away from the oil reich.
You have a lot of assumptions baked into this. Why are you certain that this disruption results in a permanent decrease in oil consumption?
Upcoming oil shocks will destroy the world economy and total consumption will collapse. We might have another world war where even more energy infrastructure is wiped out. China (the winners of the world war) will help rebuild the world from the ashes with clean energy. The table is set.
So it’s apocalyptic wishful thinking as usual, got it.
Apocalyptic, eh sure I guess.
Wishful? Not at all.
Oil reduction has already been hit. Energy markets are in chaos. Demand reduction has already occurred. Many people, like myself, are buying solar panels, EVs, electric scooters, electric bikes, battery systems, etc. The source of this is China.
The EU went from being over a decade behind their emissions targets to being over a decade ahead. A leap of 25 years in a short timespan.
Wake up and look around you. It’s happening right now.
I understand it is depressed now but as an example we saw incredible changes in emissions during the better period of shutdowns when governments were willing to take COVID seriously and that was near instantly discarded and reversed.
It is hopeful but not serious to claim that the behavior during this time is permanent without some substantial support.
this analogy is actually bad because that causes more pain to patients, the longer duration of doing it slowly is just inconvenient for nurses.
of course not, but it’s not just an environmental free roll to blow up the infrastructure
it’s a widely used figure of speech, you don’t need to be so pedantic.
Blowing up pipelines is necessary but not sufficient. It’s still necessary.
it’s a figure of speech that should die because it’s wrong
i think needless derailing pedantry should stop, because it is not helpful to conversations
i think pushing back on an idiom that causes physical harm to people is worthwhile
pixel counting, coal’s 312 minus oil and gas (452+69) = -209 neat, so what does this look like in the context of the trends going back 20 or 50 years?
what about methane?
is this accounting for the difference i brought up before in uncontrolled emissions?
and we won’t see the rebound until we see it (hopefully there simply isn’t one)