←back to thread

275 points rntn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bamboozled ◴[] No.45158197[source]
I've heard the argument made that it's better to stop burning fossil fuel, even if you're a climate change denier for reasons like this.

Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?

replies(5): >>45158318 #>>45158490 #>>45159607 #>>45160159 #>>45160626 #
graemep ◴[] No.45158318[source]
I agree. It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions.

However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.

replies(2): >>45158465 #>>45160969 #
FollowingTheDao ◴[] No.45158465[source]
> It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions.

Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?

replies(4): >>45158623 #>>45158643 #>>45158687 #>>45160934 #
1. graemep ◴[] No.45158687[source]
Yes. Not just the rest of the world wanting influence over the oil supply, resources. Natural resources have harmful effects: making currencies uncompetitive, corruption as people compete for a share of the wealth rather than creating new wealth..

https://moneyterms.co.uk/dutch-disease/