Most oil you buy indirectly. By buying groceries for example. Most non-local groceries could not be sold without oil-based transportation. In fact, if we stopped having oil-based transportation, we'd face starvation. Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.
> Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.
It would be there if we wanted to make the necessary infrastructure investment. Currently everyone's looking at amazing new battery technology to enable electric transportation, but that isn't the only way to get there. We could be electrifying the interstate highway system so that cars can get power directly from the roads, and only need batteries for short local trips.
If we had wanted to enable electric transportation, say, forty years ago that would have been the only option. It would have been expensive but we could have done it. Now, batteries are good enough that we have a choice, but I still think electrifying the highways ought to be something we're seriously thinking about doing.
I like the idea of a big spend on electric vehicles. The government essentially buys your petro clunker and gives you a $20k tax credit toward an electric vehicle. Maybe shoot for 5 million vehicles a year for only $100 billion per year. Some of the money could come from a gas/CO2 tax.
Electric roadways aren’t mutually exclusive to a credit either. I think putting solar roofs over roadways might be interesting for energy use and keeping the roadway safer. On sensitive areas you might keep the roads from getting snow and ice buildup in the winter.
Another way to get more EVs faster is for EV tax credits to apply to conversions as well as new vehicles. Let's say you have a Honda Civic. Ideally, you'd be able to buy a kit from Honda or a 3rd party that has all the parts including battery boxes and hire your local mechanic to install it.
Right now, hardly anyone does conversions except well-motivated hobbyists because many of the parts have to be made from scratch and you have to do a lot of custom engineering per vehicle. Also the parts that are available tend to be expensive and produced in low volume.
I suppose that's my point. I was being a bit sarcasitic, but if we're going to use oil, we should transport it in the safest and most environmentally friendly way possible. If we don't want to use oil, pass lass preventing or limiting its use. Making oil transport be worse helps nobody.
Well, that's the strategy right? We can't cut our addiction to oil in one go, it would kill us. So we make oil more and more expensive, and in parallel we take that money and help get alternative energies to where they need to be.
So I agree that it would have made more ecological sense to say "sure, build your pipeline, but we'll take a steadily increasing cut for every gallon that goes through it, and we're going to spend it on developing solar/hydro/nuclear"
If the pipeline is still profitable, great! The net environmental impact will be positive. If not... tant pis
Which is how it was going to work, since canada has a carbon tax (i mean, it wouldnt be as it flows down the pipeline, but at the point where its used, if in canada, but its kind of the same in the end)
Just a reminder that net environmental impact is not just "how efficient the transportation is" and how much CO2 is emitted, etc etc. It's also about tail risk and what the effects may be if leaks affect local watersheds. And due to the physics of oil pipelines, leaks are basically inevitable. These need to be taken into account when assessing what oil transport is "worse."
These have very tangible effects not only on wildlife but humans who say are getting their water from a contaminated water table.
Well you do live in a democracy (i am assuming usa here). Participating in society's processes is the answer! There's much more effective ways to disincentivize oil than to force it to be transported in a manner that takes additional fossil fuels. (New/More) Carbon taxes would be a good start.
My criticism is not that people criticize things well failing to be paragons of virtues. My criticism is that i dont think removing pipelines will improve the situation (if anything it makes it worse). Reducing dependence on oil is the answer. That doesn't mean going cold turkey overnight, but it is the thing that should be concentrated on.
I feel like attacking the pipeline to fix climate change, is kind of like trying to fix the drug problem by attacking safe injection sites. It might feel like a victory in some sense but its not actually improving anything and is probably actually increasing harm.
We (the USA) barely live in a democracy. Between inequal Senate representation, gerrymandering in state legislatures and the House, a broken, corrupt campaign finance system, and an underfunded election system primarily built to disenfranchise voters of color, it's hard to make the argument that any government in the US represents the will of its constituents.
A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1], a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2], restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3], moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4], a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5], the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6], etc. etc. etc.
Sorry I know I'm overreacting, but I think a lot of people are unaware of how dire the situation really is. If we truly lived in a democracy, we'd be moving towards at least some of these things.
I think the point generally is that you can't appreciably fix the problems we face with individual action.
Why do Americans use so much energy? Because it's cheap as a result of excluding the externality of pollution from the price.
Why do Americans generate so much waste? Because there's no reasonable way to avoid it other than to never purchase any goods that are:
- over-packaged
- packaged in non-sustainable packaging
- created/manufactured in wasteful processes
...because the externality of waste generation isn't factored into the price.
Why do Americans ship such a huge percentage of goods using fossil-fuel-fueled transportation? Because for years we didn't build rail in service of propping up the automobile industry, and because the externality of pollution from car exhaust isn't factored into the transportation price.
There are plenty of people who diligently split their trash, compost, glass, paper, plastics. There are plenty of communities that charge by the pound of unrecyclable waste. There are plenty of subsidies for installing solar panels, and energy companies giving credits for green energy generation (and other programs, like offering to provide only green energy for a premium). After years of this, we still have a huge problem. Individual action isn't the answer. It was always a smokescreen pushed on us by fossil fuel energy companies to avoid taking responsibility themselves.
That's not a remotely easy solution. It's just easy to state.
If someone can afford solar panels and an electric car (or don't need a car to get to work), more power to them, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of society.
It is my understanding that solar pannels have an ROI that is ever shorter. Hell, in many countries there are companies that arrange installation and financing, and that have good prices due to centralised purchasing.
But that is another discussion. The real point is in the first R of the hierachy of the three R's : Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle. No need to compensate huge use of energy, if you're not using the energy in the first place.
Some of the things we do in our household to reduce energy / CO2 / oil footprint (by decreasing order of impact):
* own a house that is well insulated
* instead of heating it, put on a sweater
* instead of using an A/C, close shutters during hot parts of day during hot season
* go on holiday by train or car
* own a tiny car, that is 10 years old (we have two boys)
* use the car only for exceptions (I bring the boys to school in a bus, train for work)
* no red meat, very little other meat
* buy less stuff
* recycle packaging / paper
* when we buy stuff, take into account packaging (reusable bags for rice, pasta, nuts, chocolate, etc)
For the avoidance of doubt, these are not choices given by economics. We're in the top 5% earning. We simply have made a choice to limit our impact whenever we can. And honestly, I can't say that our lifestyle is suffering.
Does this eliminate our footprint? No. But we are using, by my account, 20% that of an average American household. Can everyone do all of this? No, probably not. Buying a well-insulated house is expensive. Not everyone can use public transport. But if everyone made an effort, the world would be a different place today.
I'm not arguing that people can't reduce their carbon footprint, I'm arguing against a lazy suggestion that people don't actually care because they continue to buy any oil-based products, which is essentially unavoidable in modern society.
One person at a time. By leading by example, without being judgemental.
Big changes in society never come at once. Womens right, black rights, gay rights. Progress is made bit by bit.
And even if things don't budge, and it stays with just me. All human endeavour is pointless in the end. Each of us has to define what is important to him or her.
Nearly everyone can do something to reduce their footprint.
We need to encourage more small changes and avoid bashing people for not doing a complete lifestyle redesign straight away.
Just to keep it concrete, there’s huge benefit to reducing meat consumption - and you can still capture a lot of that benefit without going 100% vegan.
If you don't like oil, there's an easy solution, stop buying it.