Says exec of company that has objectively caused more environmental harm to the world than any others

  • bioemerl@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s possible, but it’s not like technology halted in that time and there has been a big energy independence drive regardless of Reagan.

    The harsh truth is that we still need fossil fuels today.

    We’re probably going to need them for decades to come, even if we have massive green energy drives.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      big energy independence drive

      This is a great weasel word. “Energy independence.” Like we’re going to hook cables up to George Washington and run on carbon-neutral Freedom Juice.™

      “Energy independence” still means using fossil fuels. Just maybe different ones like natural gas instead of coal. There’s less emissions, sure, but it’s not anything like what Carter envisioned: Solar power stations in LEO, beaming gigawatts of carbon neutral power down from space.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Carter also embraced nuclear energy, IIRC. Meanwhile, you’ve got California trying desperately to shut down Diablo Canyon but kicking the can down the road every two years because, surprise surprise, energy demand went up and they can’t afford to take DCNP offline. As I recall, DCNP’s reactor core was due for decommissioning twelve years ago, we just keep stringing it along like “c’mon bro, just two more years, I swear I’ll shut you down then. We won’t need your 2,000 gigawatts by then, bro, I promise, c’mon bro, please don’t fuck up on me, just hold on for two more years”. It’s stupid. We could’ve replaced the goddamn reactor by now, but we gotta play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Carter also embraced nuclear energy, IIRC.

          Carter specifically avoided nuclear energy. He was involved in a nuclear accident, so he knew the risks and favored building massive solar panels.

          To quote the linked article: “The project was not continued with the change in administrations after the 1980 United States elections.”

          That fucker Reagan also took Carter’s solar panels off the White House.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If this was truly what Carter envisioned, then he was an unbelievable moron. “Sunsats”, are not practical or environmentally efficient. The mere fact that you have to place and maintain them via spacelaunch is a huge penalty, then you have to account for radiation loss to the atmosphere.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Energy independence” still means

        It also meant reducing imports of oil by being more efficient and investing in green tech by lots of parties across the country.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          green tech

          Green tech like clean coal? Green tech like fracking to get natural gas? Which “green” tech are we talking about here?

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Green tech like wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal. The big deal was the fact you don’t need to import oil to run them.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The US is the largest producer of both crude oil and natural gas in the world. That’s what they mean when they say “energy independence:” Not importing foreign oil.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      False equivalence. If we had been working towards this goal since the 70s then more focus, both financial and science/engineering, would have been put into it and progress we’re making now might have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

      Oil companies did everything they could to stop it, instead of positioning themselves as research leaders they went for short term profits. After all, they swam in pools of money for the rest of their lives and we’ll all be here when all the crops die and the mountains become the shores.

      So anyway, that’s why I love communism now.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        that’s why I love communism now

        Imagine the Republicans controlling not only the government funding but also private funding. That’s what you’d get under communism.

        Or imagine lowest common denominator tragedy of the commons with cheap fuel ousting all other forms of energy with no state to stop it.

        Communism is a stupid ideal that doesn’t work in the real world.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So anyway, that’s why I love communism now.

        Ah yes, the Soviet Union was well-known for its production of renewable power.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Soviet Union never transitioned to communism, they stopped at an authoritarian state.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Instead of positioning themselves as research leaders”

        Why would they? If researching new ways of replacing oil is in everyone’s benefit then why does it fall on oil companies to do it? And not also everyone else?

    • Ageroth@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just how much money has been spent on fossil fuel extraction that could have been spent of tech development instead?