Kentucky's recent oil spill should be a sign to change our energy economy

[secretkeeper12]

As you may be aware, a Kentucky oil ship recently spilt 126,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi river [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/4/flyover-used-to-help-spot-mississippi-river-oil-spill.html]. This slurry oil, denser than water, sunk below the surface of the water and is virtually unrecoverable. Such a grand scale of pollution could result in significant changes in the ecosystem of the river.

Kentucky has a history of using dirty energy. Along with petroleum, coal is a major mineral mined and burned in the state. Mitch McConnell, representative of Kentucky and house majority leader, is infamous for his denial of climate change (he's the guy who brought a snowball to the house floor) despite heading the committee on science. All this results in a very irresponsible economy with no drive to change.

It's obvious that with the clear danger fossil fuels pose, not only to the environment but also to our health-lung damage from coal, water pollution from oil-our focus should not be on maintaining conventional fuels, as McConnell and Obama have done, but make a real effort to encourage renewable energy and discourage oil and coal, like what Al Gore has advocated. It seems that will be the only way to get real change.

 

[FalloutJack]

Kentucky's oil spill should be a sign to change how we contain and transport oil.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The refinery explosion in Texas should've been the sign. But so long as it's OTHER people who are dying or getting sick, the rest of us are more concerned about that cheap fuel.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Here's the thing though. Rich elite (the top 1%) controls the US. Public opinion has no influence anymore. The US is not a democracy in practice. You only have the illusion of democracy. The elite in charge doesn't give A FUCK about your environmental issues. They care about getting even richer and controlling even more stuff. You know why they don't care about your environment? Because they're fuckin' rich. They can just move to where the environment is nice and clean.

 

[secretkeeper12]

Kentucky's oil spill should be a sign to change how we contain and transport oil.

I'd rather see a conversion to nuclear energy than construction of another pipeline. Oil will never be a clean resource, so the best thing we can do is look to other power sources in the short-term. Ideally in the future, the U.S. will utilize our deserts and plains to their fullest extent for wind and solar power, maybe even putting us on par with Germany. But for the now, nuclear power is very viable.

The refinery explosion in Texas should've been the sign. But so long as it's OTHER people who are dying or getting sick, the rest of us are more concerned about that cheap fuel.

In fairness, the only reason oil is so cheap now is because China is playing with the global market. The vast supply available doesn't mean much when companies can just dictate how much can be sold.

Here's the thing though. Rich elite (the top 1%) controls the US. Public opinion has no influence anymore. The US is not a democracy in practice. You only have the illusion of democracy. The elite in charge doesn't give A FUCK about your environmental issues. They care about getting even richer and controlling even more stuff. You know why they don't care about your environment? Because they're fuckin' rich. They can just move to where the environment is nice and clean.

I agree completely. That's why I strongly support the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, who has also got a strong record on combating climate change. With him in the White House, maybe we'd see an honest republic in this country again.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Not sure that 126k gallons is all that much, the old pool was 40k gallons, sure in the immediate area it will pollute but in the grand scheme of things meh.

 

[rcs619]

Honestly, the fossil-fuel economy isn't just dangerous because of climate change. That's a long-term issue that's going to come back to bite our children and grand-children in the ass, but the real thing I'm more scared of than anything is that we wait too late to get off of it.

A lot of renewable energies and advanced technologies require fossil fuels and petroleum products to manufacture. So we still actually need fossil fuels as a stepping stone to get up to a proper post-fossil fuel industrial base. We've got a very limited window here, within the next century or two (depending on how much of the stuff there actually is), to get our tech-base to the point of sustainability. Keep in mind that it isn't just gasoline and oil we're talking about, but all different kinds of plastics, lubricants, and other synthetic materials used as the base components of other technologies.

If we miss that window, we could be looking at the nightmare scenario where we've used up all the fossil fuels and we literally *can't* make advanced technology any more. Medicine, industry, technology, it would all regress to a pre-fossil fuel level and there would be very little we could do about it. And we'd just, kind of be stuck like that, because it takes millions and millions of years (and a few mass extinction events) for fossil fuels to repopulate to the levels they were at when we started harvesting them.

In that scenario, humanity kind of goes out with a whimper, developmentally crippled and forced to regress back to wood fires and coal (what's left of it) as our primary energy sources.

 

[Zontar]

Not sure that 126k gallons is all that much, the old pool was 40k gallons, sure in the immediate area it will pollute but in the grand scheme of things meh.

Yeah, that's just 3000 barrels of oil. That's not even enough to fill 4 railcars when you get right down to it. Pretty damn small when you get right down to it.

 

[Thomas Barnsley]

Damn, the arctic is so fucked...

Well as long as people are still trying to create viable sustainability technology (Musk with his batteries being prominent among them) EVENTUALLY policy will catch up. At least I hope so. But it's got to at some point right?

Honestly, the fossil-fuel economy isn't just dangerous because of climate change. That's a long-term issue that's going to come back to bite our children and grand-children in the ass, but the real thing I'm more scared of than anything is that we wait too late to get off of it.

A lot of renewable energies and advanced technologies require fossil fuels and petroleum products to manufacture. So we still actually need fossil fuels as a stepping stone to get up to a proper post-fossil fuel industrial base. We've got a very limited window here, within the next century or two (depending on how much of the stuff there actually is), to get our tech-base to the point of sustainability. Keep in mind that it isn't just gasoline and oil we're talking about, but all different kinds of plastics, lubricants, and other synthetic materials used as the base components of other technologies.

If we miss that window, we could be looking at the nightmare scenario where we've used up all the fossil fuels and we literally *can't* make advanced technology any more. Medicine, industry, technology, it would all regress to a pre-fossil fuel level and there would be very little we could do about it. And we'd just, kind of be stuck like that, because it takes millions and millions of years (and a few mass extinction events) for fossil fuels to repopulate to the levels they were at when we started harvesting them.

In that scenario, humanity kind of goes out with a whimper, developmentally crippled and forced to regress back to wood fires and coal (what's left of it) as our primary energy sources.

Well that's a terrifying thought. Most of our plastic comes from oil, and how much basic technology would cease to exist when we lose plastic? Our only option would be hella good recycling or ethanol dehydration (which would cause more environmental fuckups as we clear land for crops and fermentation plants).

 

[zumbledum]

so called green and renewable energy concerns me more than fossil fuel does, not saying fossil fuel is good , its not but at least we have an idea how bad it is. theres absolutely no way to predict what changes mass use of renewable sources will cause.

 

[Thomas Barnsley]

so called green and renewable energy concerns me more than fossil fuel does, not saying fossil fuel is good , its not but at least we have an idea how bad it is. theres absolutely no way to predict what changes mass use of renewable sources will cause.

Apart from how much of a pain in the ass it would be to reliably set up, I can't imagine any dangers you'd face from renewables that are worse than those posed by non-renewables. I guess hydroelectric dams could have the potential for destruction, with flooding and diverted waterways and such. But changing a river into a lake must be better than poisoning it outright.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

The money is with oil, the brains are with nukes, the idiots run the world.

Pretty much this. For all the howling that people do over the subject, as soon as you propose any type of hardship that would come with switching away from our current energy economy, even the hardcore environmentalists tend to back down.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

so called green and renewable energy concerns me more than fossil fuel does, not saying fossil fuel is good , its not but at least we have an idea how bad it is. theres absolutely no way to predict what changes mass use of renewable sources will cause.

Damn right. For all we know this so-called 'global warming' is actually the direct result of the Sun becoming displeased with us for trying to steal it's life-blood. Worse yet, I hear that if you build enough windfarms they'll act like giant propellers, increasing the speed of Earth's rotation and eventually hurling us all off into space!

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Oil will never be a clean resource, which is why as long as people are going to fight for its use (and they will), the battle we should fight to win first is to force them to damn-well make it transported and used safely. IF you can't get people to play a different ballgame, start with compromising on the rules. Get your foot in the door first.

 

[Tiger King]

As you may be aware, a Kentucky oil ship recently spilt 126,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi river [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/4/flyover-used-to-help-spot-mississippi-river-oil-spill.html]. This slurry oil, denser than water, sunk below the surface of the water and is virtually unrecoverable. Such a grand scale of pollution could result in significant changes in the ecosystem of the river.

Kentucky has a history of using dirty energy. Along with petroleum, coal is a major mineral mined and burned in the state. Mitch McConnell, representative of Kentucky and house majority leader, is infamous for his denial of climate change (he's the guy who brought a snowball to the house floor) despite heading the committee on science. All this results in a very irresponsible economy with no drive to change.

It's obvious that with the clear danger fossil fuels pose, not only to the environment but also to our health-lung damage from coal, water pollution from oil-our focus should not be on maintaining conventional fuels, as McConnell and Obama have done, but make a real effort to encourage renewable energy and discourage oil and coal, like what Al Gore has advocated. It seems that will be the only way to get real change.

worked in renewable energy.
a lot of problems to overcome with little output, however given time we can overcome this

 

[BrokenTinker]

As you may be aware, a Kentucky oil ship recently spilt 126,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi river [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/4/flyover-used-to-help-spot-mississippi-river-oil-spill.html]. This slurry oil, denser than water, sunk below the surface of the water and is virtually unrecoverable. Such a grand scale of pollution could result in significant changes in the ecosystem of the river.

Kentucky has a history of using dirty energy. Along with petroleum, coal is a major mineral mined and burned in the state. Mitch McConnell, representative of Kentucky and house majority leader, is infamous for his denial of climate change (he's the guy who brought a snowball to the house floor) despite heading the committee on science. All this results in a very irresponsible economy with no drive to change.

It's obvious that with the clear danger fossil fuels pose, not only to the environment but also to our health-lung damage from coal, water pollution from oil-our focus should not be on maintaining conventional fuels, as McConnell and Obama have done, but make a real effort to encourage renewable energy and discourage oil and coal, like what Al Gore has advocated. It seems that will be the only way to get real change.

worked in renewable energy.
a lot of problems to overcome with little output, however given time we can overcome this

Sadly I'm not optimistic, those problems will probably not be solved by the time I'm in the ground 6 feet under.

Solar is a bust, solar farm is just as bad for the ecology (see cooked birds and displaced animals). Non-farm solar panels are a freaking fire hazards (for firefighters). Wind causes a shitload of bird death and noise pollution. Tidal harvesters killing marine life. The only solution is a rapid decline in consumption, which really means a lot of people are gonna have to die. Nukes are our greatest and best option, especially with the all the newer, safer design with built-in kill switch, but with the world being ignorant and self-righteous hypocrites screaming "NO TO NUKES", we ain't gonna get a new gen. up and running anytime soon to actually make a difference.

Want changes to the energy economy? Cut living standards, good luck with that, especially with politics and shit mucking it up.

 

[Fox12]

Honestly, the fossil-fuel economy isn't just dangerous because of climate change. That's a long-term issue that's going to come back to bite our children and grand-children in the ass, but the real thing I'm more scared of than anything is that we wait too late to get off of it.

A lot of renewable energies and advanced technologies require fossil fuels and petroleum products to manufacture. So we still actually need fossil fuels as a stepping stone to get up to a proper post-fossil fuel industrial base. We've got a very limited window here, within the next century or two (depending on how much of the stuff there actually is), to get our tech-base to the point of sustainability. Keep in mind that it isn't just gasoline and oil we're talking about, but all different kinds of plastics, lubricants, and other synthetic materials used as the base components of other technologies.

If we miss that window, we could be looking at the nightmare scenario where we've used up all the fossil fuels and we literally *can't* make advanced technology any more. Medicine, industry, technology, it would all regress to a pre-fossil fuel level and there would be very little we could do about it. And we'd just, kind of be stuck like that, because it takes millions and millions of years (and a few mass extinction events) for fossil fuels to repopulate to the levels they were at when we started harvesting them.

In that scenario, humanity kind of goes out with a whimper, developmentally crippled and forced to regress back to wood fires and coal (what's left of it) as our primary energy sources.

People won't be interested in clean energy until it becomes a cheaper alternative to oil, which won't happen until prices rise as a result of scarcity, or some newer technology beats it out in terms of cost. I suspect the forces that be would take drastic steps when the problem is no longer a distant threat.

All things said, I am relatively optimistic. I think the American public could be convinced when you weigh their love of oil against their hatred of the Middle East and Russia, where a lot of that garbage comes from. Not to mention that every country is responsible for tackling their infrastructure for themselves. Even if America were too foolish to solve the problem, other nations wouldn't be.

Though a 7 billion+ population in a pre-oil economy would be quite a hellscape.

 

[Fox12]

snio

You know what occurred to me? If we can clone and replicate animals, would it not be possible to preserve endangered creatures in that way? It's an interesting thought experiment that could be achievable in future generations. This isn't Jurassic Park and long dead dinosaurs, after all, we have the genetic material available for study now.

 

[renegade7]

Well that's a terrifying thought. Most of our plastic comes from oil, and how much basic technology would cease to exist when we lose plastic? Our only option would be hella good recycling or ethanol dehydration (which would cause more environmental fuckups as we clear land for crops and fermentation plants).

In the worst-case scenario, plastic and oil can still be created from plant fiber if they're needed as materials. But that still wouldn't be able to work as fuel and it would make plastic and oil fantastically expensive because rendering of plant fiber into plastic is a very inefficient process.

 

[renegade7]

snio

You know what occurred to me? If we can clone and replicate animals, would it not be possible to preserve endangered creatures in that way? It's an interesting thought experiment that could be achievable in future generations. This isn't Jurassic Park and long dead dinosaurs, after all, we have the genetic material available for study now.

Only if you had enough clones, and enough samples from different members of the species to have a genetically viable population. You need several thousand genetically unique specimens to enable mutations from generation to generation to cancel out the risks of inbreeding. If they're too similar, you end up with a genetic bottleneck, and if they're able to cross-breed with other species (occasionally suggested as a means to bring back old species, ie, allowing mammoths and elephants to mate) then the gene pool will end up being diluted and making the revived species go extinct again.

It's not like it's impossible, I could see an NGO forming to support a "gene bank" to preserve genetic material from animals at risk of extinction the same way some groups do with seeds so that they can still exist in the event of global catastrophe, but they would need a colossal amount of money and it would be far cheaper to just keep those animals from going extinct in the first place.

And cloning is still so difficult to begin with, even with new genetic engineering technology like CRISPR.