

The Worst Oil in the World: Crude That’s Tarring the Climate - DiabloD3
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-worst-oil-in-the-world-the-crude-thats-tarring-the-climate

======
beloch
It's all well and good to say that we should use less oil. The trick is to
make the alternatives _cheaper_. That's what a lot of people don't understand.
A middle class Californian can afford to spend a little extra to be "green".
The majority of the developing world, and even a significant portion of people
in the most developed parts of the world, cannot.

All that being said, this index leaves out several vital pieces of
information. First, which way are these sources are trending? Alberta's oil
sands have come a long way and are driving research in carbon capture.
California Midway Sunset, on the other hand, is likely just as dirty now as it
was decades ago. Nigeria Obagi may have lower carbon emissions than some on
this list, but it is by far the dirtiest in terms of toxic chemical pollution,
and is major contributing factor to why life expectancy is so low in Nigeria.
There are social costs as well because many sources of oil prop up less than
democratically elected leaders.

One cannot measure the impact of oil producers using carbon production alone!

~~~
mullen
> It's all well and good to say that we should use less oil. The trick is to
> make the alternatives cheaper. That's what a lot of people don't understand.
> A middle class Californian can afford to spend a little extra to be "green".
> The majority of the developing world, and even a significant portion of
> people in the most developed parts of the world, cannot.

Yes, but the average middle class Californian uses a lot more energy that an
average person in the developing world. If an average Californian can cut
their energy use and green house gas output by 20%, that has a lot more
environmental impact than say 75% cut of the average person in the third
world. The people who have to get their environmental impact down the most are
people in the 1st world.

~~~
henrikschroder
Making people feel bad about the environment has a very small effect, and only
a privileged minority that can afford to care will change their habits.

If you instead make the environmentally better choices cheaper, _everyone_
will change their habits.

------
vaadu
"By now, everyone knows that oil is ​a leading driver of global climate
change."

Knows? I thought it was coal.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coal-not-oil-
sa...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coal-not-oil-sands-the-
true-climate-change-bad-guy-analysis-shows/article547607/)

[http://www.wired.com/2008/12/oil-not-the-
cli/](http://www.wired.com/2008/12/oil-not-the-cli/)

What's it going to be next week?

------
rickdale
Vice is doing some great comprehensive reporting on climate change. Their
recent episode on HBO about the Arctic ice melting was fascinating.

-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h92Ath_2XA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h92Ath_2XA)

~~~
IanDrake
I couldn't watch past the first ten minutes. The absurdity of the reporting
was too much.

Climate change is real, if you're skeptical, you're a denier and you must be
funded by big oil. Seems like all this guy has to offer is scenes of summer
ice melt and ad-hominem attacks.

If their science was right, that Greenland is 60yrs ahead of ice melt
predictions, then where is the sea level rise that was predicted?

~~~
kaybe
The basics are very basic physics that have been known for a long time, so we
know what green-house gases do with a planet. Where it gets harder are the
details - climate is complex and we find new influences every day.

Here is another carbon sink, oh, and here is a source, and apparently heating
this spot in the stratosphere causes a change in circulation which influences
the biosphere, and there is a volcanic eruption shielding some solar input,
oh, and looks like it is also destroying ozone, oh, and that albedo change
there has a slightly bigger influence than thought, and can I get more
computing power for better grid resolution?

So, details are hard. What do we _know_?

\- We do measure an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

\- These gases are absorbing light of long thermal wavelength, and are clear
to short solar wavelengths --> thus a first order feedback would a higher
ground temperature.

\- And yes, the amount is big enough to make a difference.

What do we have to find out is how all the higher order feedback mechanisms
work, such as atmospheric water content, circulation, uptake in sinks and
emission from sources, albedo, .... but you can be sure there will be change
since the system is not in a stable position. How that change will look like
is hard to say, but we're working on it. Don't be too harsh, it's a hard
problem.

~~~
IanDrake
>Don't be too harsh, it's a hard problem.

That's my point. It's a hard problem. Hard problems don't get solved by
pretending we know the solution.

~~~
kaybe
Well, we know part of the truth. We have to work on the details, but are
hopefully getting gradually more correct. At the same time, if the predictions
are right, acting is good. If the predictions are not right, acting is at
least not bad, and many of the proposed ideas are still good. If you're
sceptical, bring your arguments and help us refine our knowledge. (Google
first, most points have been adressed extensively by many people.)

(e.g. 'Don't burn oil but save it for better uses' is good in a world with
finite oil reserves. 'Don't treat the land badly and keep forests' is good for
water management and erosion.)

There is a more fitting blog post, but I cannot find it right now. This also
works:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/)

Seriously, if we for some reason find there is no cause to worry there will be
a huge party!

------
ohazi
Am I crazy, or has there been an abundance of vice links appearing on HN
recently? Any particular reason?

~~~
DiabloD3
They've been writing an awful lot of decent content. That'll end eventually,
though.

