6 ms·

It's not quite that simple. The truth is that we just don't know how to move oil safely. The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. "The IEA (International

It's not quite that simple. The truth is that we just don't know how to move oil safely. The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. "The IEA (International Energy Agency) found the risk of a rail spill is six times as high as the risk of a pipeline spill, but pipelines simply spill more when they rupture." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-rail-spills_n_3273725.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-...

ta38383 13y ago
The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.)
- waffles4all 13y ago
  >>And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.) This is what came to mind while reading OP's and your comment: One of the worst possible consequences arising from global warming is destabilization of agriculture. As you surely know, large-scale agriculture relies on the known climate for a particular region. This includes water supplies, knowing what to plant, and what pests to watch out for. The problem with climate change is exactly that: the climate for regions could change, adding many more unknowns/uncertainties to an already complex system. Some change is expected, but what I don't know is what tolerance we can handle. My (perhaps unfounded) fear is that these disruptions could push us back to pre-18th century standard of living.
  - Frozenlock 13y ago
    So many assumptions... * 1st assumption: It is within human reach to change the climate. * 2nd: Current climate variations are created by human activities. * 3rd: A human induced climate change will make the planet warmer. * 4th: A warmer planet is bad. (If you look at a world map, you'll see huge surface of land in the temperate and frigid zones.)
    - waffles4all 13y ago
      You use many assumptions too: take all of your questions and take the negative, you can't show them either. I am a practicing scientist, I work in alternative energy and develop semiconductors. I am not a climatologist, and it is not likely you are either. Expert-level knowledge matters, unless you've yet to master anything. The climate is a very complex system. Small perturbations can have unexpected results, see the butterfly effect. We do not know the whole picture, but neither do you. Caution and conservation would suggest we want things to remain the same, such as CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Producing carbon dioxide by thermal combustion is old technology. Ultimately fossil fuels are solar energy, the overall solar-to-electricity efficiency for fossil fuels is very low, <<1%. We can make PV with >40% using evidence-based principles developed using the scientific method. Scientific methods and principles are used in climate research. Cherry picking is not what I do when it comes to the scientific majority. If they are wrong and they later determine this, great, it is science. If they are right, great, it is science. If you ignore the scientific conclusion, you are not practicing science unless you are a researcher working to show why other experts are mistaken. Experts have concluded that anthropogenic CO2 is a real and potentially serious problem. I have to trust them because my time is better spent developing potential solutions rather than rehashing their work. We advance by building off the shoulders of our predecessors. The costs of being wrong about anthropogenic climate change and doing something are negligible especially if we make progress while doing so, but the costs of being right and doing nothing are potentially dangerous if we destabilize systems which require predictability such as agriculture.
      - Frozenlock 13y ago
        > You use many assumptions too (..) No I didn't. I pointed yours. Furthermore, you inferred my position on the matter simply by me pointing out your assumptions. I could too want a better world less dependent on fossil fuels for all you know.
        waffles4all 13y ago
        My position is in line with the scientific majority. This is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Taking issue with the assumptions used in this already established finding could suggest you either (1) don't know much about subject, (2) you have biases not from your own scientific inquiry, (3) you have drawn conclusions from your own research. There are large and well-funded disinformation campaigns, which work hard online to inject doubt into this discussion. Most certainly you aren't involved with this in any way, but it's possible you're influenced by it. It is unreasonable for every post to be completely exhaustive, otherwise few would or could say anything. Perhaps you point out every discussion's assumptions, but if you do not then it might lead one to wonder what your deal is with this one.
- PuerkitoBio 13y ago
  While oil usage is globally still growing [0], so contrary to some replies, we are not already in a phase-out situation, some countries have taken steps to do just that, and I doubt they are reverting back to 19th century lifestyle. Sweden aims to drastically reduce its dependency to oil by 2020 [1], replacing it with renewable energies. Of course the "how" part of the phase-out will vary depending on the region of the world. But this is doable, not science fiction. I guess my point is that positions like "face it, we need oil so let's build more pipelines" are the ones that are holding us back from a better world. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consum... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Socie...

ta38383 13y ago

The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.)

waffles4all 13y ago
>>And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.) This is what came to mind while reading OP's and your comment: One of the worst possible consequences arising from global warming is destabilization of agriculture. As you surely know, large-scale agriculture relies on the known climate for a particular region. This includes water supplies, knowing what to plant, and what pests to watch out for. The problem with climate change is exactly that: the climate for regions could change, adding many more unknowns/uncertainties to an already complex system. Some change is expected, but what I don't know is what tolerance we can handle. My (perhaps unfounded) fear is that these disruptions could push us back to pre-18th century standard of living.
- Frozenlock 13y ago
  So many assumptions... * 1st assumption: It is within human reach to change the climate. * 2nd: Current climate variations are created by human activities. * 3rd: A human induced climate change will make the planet warmer. * 4th: A warmer planet is bad. (If you look at a world map, you'll see huge surface of land in the temperate and frigid zones.)
  - waffles4all 13y ago
    You use many assumptions too: take all of your questions and take the negative, you can't show them either. I am a practicing scientist, I work in alternative energy and develop semiconductors. I am not a climatologist, and it is not likely you are either. Expert-level knowledge matters, unless you've yet to master anything. The climate is a very complex system. Small perturbations can have unexpected results, see the butterfly effect. We do not know the whole picture, but neither do you. Caution and conservation would suggest we want things to remain the same, such as CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Producing carbon dioxide by thermal combustion is old technology. Ultimately fossil fuels are solar energy, the overall solar-to-electricity efficiency for fossil fuels is very low, <<1%. We can make PV with >40% using evidence-based principles developed using the scientific method. Scientific methods and principles are used in climate research. Cherry picking is not what I do when it comes to the scientific majority. If they are wrong and they later determine this, great, it is science. If they are right, great, it is science. If you ignore the scientific conclusion, you are not practicing science unless you are a researcher working to show why other experts are mistaken. Experts have concluded that anthropogenic CO2 is a real and potentially serious problem. I have to trust them because my time is better spent developing potential solutions rather than rehashing their work. We advance by building off the shoulders of our predecessors. The costs of being wrong about anthropogenic climate change and doing something are negligible especially if we make progress while doing so, but the costs of being right and doing nothing are potentially dangerous if we destabilize systems which require predictability such as agriculture.
    - Frozenlock 13y ago
      > You use many assumptions too (..) No I didn't. I pointed yours. Furthermore, you inferred my position on the matter simply by me pointing out your assumptions. I could too want a better world less dependent on fossil fuels for all you know.
      - waffles4all 13y ago
        My position is in line with the scientific majority. This is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Taking issue with the assumptions used in this already established finding could suggest you either (1) don't know much about subject, (2) you have biases not from your own scientific inquiry, (3) you have drawn conclusions from your own research. There are large and well-funded disinformation campaigns, which work hard online to inject doubt into this discussion. Most certainly you aren't involved with this in any way, but it's possible you're influenced by it. It is unreasonable for every post to be completely exhaustive, otherwise few would or could say anything. Perhaps you point out every discussion's assumptions, but if you do not then it might lead one to wonder what your deal is with this one.
PuerkitoBio 13y ago
While oil usage is globally still growing [0], so contrary to some replies, we are not already in a phase-out situation, some countries have taken steps to do just that, and I doubt they are reverting back to 19th century lifestyle. Sweden aims to drastically reduce its dependency to oil by 2020 [1], replacing it with renewable energies. Of course the "how" part of the phase-out will vary depending on the region of the world. But this is doable, not science fiction. I guess my point is that positions like "face it, we need oil so let's build more pipelines" are the ones that are holding us back from a better world. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consum... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Socie...