this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
421 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14228 readers
2466 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No, people expect the Dems to not exponentially make problems worse, since that's their only function based on the last 80 years of their actions. Biden failed to do that simple function, and signed off more public lands to oil companies than trump and Bush Jr combined.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

And this is where I wonder what industry y'all work in. To stop oil demand going up, you would have to produce not a single new ice car, not a single new gas furnace, not a single new gas water heater, not a single new gas stove, not a single new industrial gas furnace/processer/whatever machinery. Not a single one. To do that alone is a monumental task that takes unbelievable effort and time. Too many people think it can be done like you update code or something, y'all have no idea how big industry is. That's just to stop it going up, not to actually reduce use. But don't worry protest voters, we can start again in 4 years. And again don't get me wrong, I want environmental policy. I just know what it takes.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

We were talking about oil production. But yes, you can lay the framework to stop all of that in four years. Because we have alternatives to all of that that are cheaper too make, cheaper to own, cheaper to run, and cheaper to maintain, save for a few specific industrial use cases and the aviation industry.

You can just update code, and switch subsidies to non fossil fuels alternatives. And stop fucking blocking Chinese imports.

We can do it. We know we can because other countries are, and are showing how ridiculously easy it is. Shockingly easy. Frustratingly easy.

But you need to want to do it, and that requires putting the environment above personal investments and greed, and no Democrat is capable of that.

Stop excusing monsters, less you become one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Fair enough we can limit this to oil if you want (but I look at the whole issue). Limiting to oil means no new ICE cars. Not a single one! And we're back to what freaking industry do you guys work in. For every car company to retool every single plant. New assembly lines, new machinery. New parts suppliers, entirely new supply chain. Can't forget you have to engineer and test new cars before that. For mining to pick up to produce all the chemicals. More new manufacturing expansion to manufacture batteries. Don't forget all the assembly lines and machinery for that. Electrical companies, new power plants and new power lines. Hey cities and states, get that planning and permits going. Construction is notoriously fast /s.

You guys seem to have no idea the difficulty in working with physical products at scale.

And more inb4 Lemmy's famous misreading, yes we should do it. What I'm saying is it takes more planning, effort, and time than you can imagine.

Oh you make a thinly veiled personal attack. Why do I bother. Ciao.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

... No, it doesn't. Xiaomi went from zero cars produced to 500,000 cars produced in under 5 years. All EVs. All without subsidization.

We can do this way faster than you oil loving freaks(since you're already claiming I did a personal attack) would like to admit. It's fucking easy. There's a real reason why Americans hate China, because it's shown the inherent lies and propaganda tied to every single belief that corporate dogs like you espouse.

You claim to want to help the environment. Stop repeating fossil fuel company lies and propaganda then. Maybe someone would take you seriously.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't want to sound like I'm being another hater, you've copped a lot of unwarranted downvotes and vitriol. People not willing to discuss things is part of the problem- attacks and trying to silence people through downvotes does not contribute to discussion.

If you're willing to keep presenting your viewpoint, I'd appreciate some clarity. I urge anyone replying to your comment to engage with thought and maturity. We all learn from opinions that aren't aligned with ours.

My main question is around your claim that we would have to stop producing any new infrastructure that relies on oil, to prevent consumption going up. I'm not sure I agree- To use a simple example, if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption? Of course, this is a very simple example.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When the opening goes out of its way to divert the conversation into political blame slinging, the vitriol is very much warranted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

we're blaming people for things now???

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

diesel engine that uses less diesel

I think we're at pretty marginal improvements for efficiency, and it's overshadowed by the move to SUVs anway. I think it doesn't amount to much for this 10,000 ft view kind of discussion.

Hybrids can do it, but I'm 'ehhh' on the whole concept.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm still trying to understand what you're saying about needing to stop producing any ice cars if we are to reduce consumption.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let's say there are 250 million ice cars on the street. Ice sales stop. The next day how many ice cars are on the street? 250 million. Gas consumption is the same. You then have to wait (what everyone hates in our now now now world) for ice cars to wear out and inventory to turn over to see any decline in gas.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good point, and well made. However, ICE cars are already wearing out. 250 million ICE cars on the road. ICE sales stop. The next day, some of those 250 million cars wear out. Gas consumption goes down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but it's the scale and timeframe. People talk like they expect gas consumption to go down now. It's all over the place. They talk as if a few EVs will cause gas consumption to go down, and it's so easy why aren't we doing it already. The reality is it needs to be 100% EV sales for that to happen.

And it's also policy. We're not going to get 100% EV sales any time soon. So gas consumption will go up. Pretty much anything short of 100% ev sales means our gas consumption goes up. Combined with growing population, yeah more consumption.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's fairly straightforward- if a new car is an EV, consumption will be less than if that car was ICE.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not when we go to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. This is not static like everyone talks about. To make any real dent you pretty much need 100% EV sales.

Again it's the scale timeframe and policy. Scale: we're talking the entire country, not singular cars. That means you have to account for what I listed above: movement to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. Timeframe: people demand decrease now. Not 20 years from now. That means you can't wait out mixed EV and Ice sales for 20 years. Policy: People talk as if Biden failed because has consumption is up. Ok last explanation. He implements the impossible policy of 100% EV sales in 4 years. The result? Gas consumption is the same. See 250 million cars explanation. And people yell that he failed and it's so easy. Reality is he succeeded and people don't understand the metrics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok, I can see you aren't interested in debating this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

lol and now I see that you want to debate rather than seeking information like you initially said. Yeah that explains things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption?

strictly speaking, generally, yes it would. However for the sake of the argument, including this kind of detail is.

Not important.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

so you mean all the oil production that trump created, that biden kept relatively linear wasn't good enough?

You want the dems to reverse everything the republicans do, and more? Good luck with a political campaign.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Misinformation isn't allowed here, Biden raised oil production, Trump lowered it.bhttps://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M

You want the dems to reverse everything the republicans do, and more? Good luck with a political campaign.

Yes, I want them to adopt popular bipartisan policies, like m4a, green energy subsidies, food subsidies, new government housing, etc

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

if you're referencing that specific graph, the graph where oil production starts fairly high, and then drops significantly due to covid, and then rose back up a little bit higher than where it was previously. Compared to the 2016-2020 period where there is a very clear and distinct rise in production? Even including the 2016 lull.

I wish this graph was a little cleaner, and didnt include 100 years worth of oil production, and also had a rate of change average over the top of it, that would really demonstrate the point i'm making.

Yes, I want them to adopt popular bipartisan policies, like m4a, green energy subsidies, food subsidies, new government housing, etc

i would like for them to adopt these as well, but i fear almost none of these are going to be "bipartisan" the political climate is just too much of a disaster for this stuff to matter right now. Also, doesn't the IRA bill literally subsidize green energy? As well as appliance and utility upgrades for home owners.