Comments by "Valorie Napoletana" (@valorienapoletana4063) on "Production of rare metals used in green energies causes environmental disasters" video.

Not worse, just the same. Large scale power and materials for travel and industry is the problem. But they refuse to say it exactly like that... they call it something elusive and vague... kind of like how pollution clouds were remarketed as just "smog" making horrors sound just like an innocuous weather phenomenon. Why is that being done? So they can charge us more without paying for or even asking for or even knowing what viable solutions actually are... Meaning the entire problem is large scale polluters wanting more money with zero consequences. Literally don't know how to put it more succinctly. That's it. The entire problem.
6
No, it's not. This is an exhaustible resource for the most part. Meaning we have about a decade before oil production can't keep up (without devastating what's left of the environment; and even then it's under a century; we are squandering one of the most significant natural resources we've ever discovered and our first instincts has been to literally light it on fire and burn it into our atmosphere at astounding rates) and that means our economics will then collapse around such a resource. Meaning the cost of oil and oil based technology will increase. Rapidly, without remorse. Our current economic model and choosing to continue it leads to collapse. Meaning we literally have no viable energy source without shackling ourselves to corporations as wage slaves and begging for enough energy. Which is exactly how corporate and government interests want it to be. Stay? No. Nothing stays. We change, we adapt, we learn to be more efficient or perish to a controllable level that in our current world means wage slavery.
6
@ While this is true... even 90% reduced oil production or less would have significant impacts on everything from the availability of such resources, the costs of obtaining them and their uses and disposal and still exacerbate unfavorable environmental conditions. It's less that we need to think about how a collapsing industry may endure, and more about the technologies we want to preserve. Modern Medicine and medical technology is inseparable from the use of energy and plastic. I would assume that we'd all want such services and emergency protections to endure. And if it were framed in the light of we get to choose healthcare and advancement in medicine or have to use biodegradable straws I think the choice becomes more understandable. And there's a lot more choices in each industry and sector as you mention. Leaving those decisions up to corporations and marketing is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. It will never be the solution. Freedom of choice with more accurate choices being presented is one of our only ways out of this nightmare without some rather sad outcomes.
5
Burning alcohols instead of gasoline isn't much different. Ethanol is already used widely and is literally used in gasoline already. We may be told these things are "cleaner" and from a chemical equivalence standard... sure... to an environmental impact? You can't solve the problem with the problem... you simply may have scaled that problem... slightly... maybe... you hope.
4
@dufensmertz1 The possibility exists. The cynicism doesn't really hold up. We're still well within the ranges for beginning changes. If the AMOC does alter significantly we may see quite strange things occur.
2
@ Cool statement... you're telling a scientist something I already know and then pretending nothing else is possibly occurring despite enormous evidence... can you link your data proving such? I've been through hundreds of such studies and experiments... sometimes with the scientist who did them and others I've repeated in my... if I'm not qualified, I know someone who is... lemme guess though? You got nothing but a keyboard and an obnoxious ego.
2
@ No, you don't. Belief isn't required for something of this nature that's so readily able to be studied. The conflicting data is vastly more unreliable to what I'm saying. Let's be really clear though... your skepticism doesn't yield a valid position. It's literally the same as saying "I don't know." And that's where most people are... despite what the media and educators have been able to explain to us. Made all the more difficult by enormous pressure from private interests hell bent on destroying our planet for profit. So really... what you even doing here? What do you think this means? What's more reasonable? A bunch of politicians protecting oil interests took something people don't understand and science was just starting to better understand its effects lies blatantly and created the largest misinformation campaign in modern history and they do it to this day due to its success at deceiving people... or a bunch of people who meticulously study the world around us, myself being one of those people with friends who do the same, are just completely falsifying their life's work on a broad and widespread scale???
2
@ forever is a far, far, far longer time than petroleum use can endure. It requires millions of years and the correct conditions to produce and extract. It may be possible to extend our use of it by using its fractions more efficiently but it will not be replenished at a rate that allows us to continue anything close to beyond a few decades. And there's collapse thereof WILL mean our use of oil ends. In part, and in scale at minimum. That's not negotiable. That's what they're planning. Exhaust the resource to make it more valuable as the hordes we have will then be worth more so we can control the populations through economics.
2
@AzzaMitsi-b3b Did I say anything about that? Why do people constantly assume that if I'm critical of oil I must mean wind and solar? Those literally aren't efficient enough in resources for us to convert. We've other technology and energy methods. We just aren't using them meaningfully. To be clear... we are running out of resources and mining them further would be just as devastating to the earth as burning the remaining fossil fuels.
2
@shakirghazali2890 The abrahamic religions (regardless of intention or interpretation at this point) are one of the primary backseat drivers to climate change. You can't solve the problem with more of the problem.
1
@ This comment shows you have no clue what you're talking about. We enter interglacial periods on a ~10-15k year period. Our current carbon levels suggest they will stay with us without intervention for approximately 100k years. What we've been measuring IS NOT weather temperature. It's complex, long term system anomalies. Abnormal changes we cannot find any natural cause but do directly measure such from our actions. Are we the sole cause? It's too complicated a system for such things. Can we influence such majorly? Absolutely. It's basic chemistry I can do in my lab or show you how to do in your kitchen. To contradict such things would require overwhelming evidence and specific, repeatable experiments with a valid field study that proves your hypothesis. If you can do all that... go publish and earn your noble prize. If not? Go to your nearest university and start studying science or at least get off the internet where you pretend your popular ignorance is the same as knowledge. When we knew less, we were absolutely worried that the anomaly, which we are at the very least influencing, had the potential to disrupt earth systems typically shown to cause glacial periods. That it didn't happen immediately like some cheeseball disaster movie made people think that it meant it wasn't real due to the influence of oil company marketing and politics influence (verifiable). The timescales are important here. We were likely to enter a period of approximately 50,000 years of relative climate stability and mild interglacial periods. We have, by all data I've seen and my colleagues discuss, absolutely changed such and that it may be possible to happen in under 500 years and not 5000 should be cause for extreme concern as the shift from period to period is dramatic and we are quickly exhausting some of our most valuable resources to survive such events merely so we can have toys and work ourselves to death. Whatever... be like everyone else on the internet and pretend you know more and try to explain science to a chemist... go on... you know you want to...
1
@ even thinking about it like that doesn't work... we're already using it... it creates emissions... it's like saying we can put a fire out by throwing even more fire on the fire... it's absurdity.
1
@ You're more correct than you realize. The energy itself is the issue. Not just the ones you mention. This biosphere shift is caused by the zetajoules of imbalance to the entire surface energy circulation. The sea surface temperature and emissions and other gauges we use to explain that imbalance to people is not the full energy imbalance in the oceans atmosphere and land. The energy imbalance is quite significant. Heating anything to produce large scale power may be the problem at this point. We need localized and efficient methods that aren't rooted in unchecked capitalism. The only reason we do energy in the manner we do is because they can charge us for it and supply energy to polluting industries. Human survival energy and our daily lives (without the need for daily commutes) is only 6-14% of energy demand. The rest is the decisions of industry, inefficiency in transportation of goods due and agricultural inefficiency. We, as people, represent an 8 billionth of under 15% of the issue that equates to under 7% of total emissions. Likely less if we weren't so dependent on the system that forces such energy inefficiency on us in many ways. We truly need to stop thinking we can replace the current systems one to one from polluting systems to "green systems" and better understand how to switch from a system that rewards the largest scale polluters and energy wasters to one that aids our local communities and ensures they are more capable and prepared for what's coming.
1
@AzzaMitsi-b3b I understand you want to pretend we get to argue on such terms. The real resource dilemmas just don't work in the manner you're trying to get me to describe. We don't have resources like they're just numbers on a map to be collected. Producing anything is about to become a problem and I mean most things. At the scale we have been? It's just not happening. We aren't choosing between "fossil fuels" and "green energy" we're choosing between collapse and degrowth and how to collapse or degrow.
1
@ But we WILL run out of our ability to extract it meaningfully at the capacity we have been.
1
@ But we have hit peak oil. That's the fact of it. Our production is not increasing. Our alternatives (the just as bad ones or worse so they can force us to keep paying for energy) have been. I literally been sayin the same about those other rare resources. I'm not some philosopher. I'm a chemist with scientist friends studying this all over the planet. We are dumbfounded we haven't engaged the real solutions in favor of keeping everyone entangled in the economic nightmare we've created.
1
@ Yeah... we've been teetering on that collapse point for a couple decades... however the demand and population of this decade will push us above possible oil production levels. Despite your skepticism and cynicism... we're here... right exactly at the point where we can continue to exhaust an extremely valuable resource before the time we will need it the most or begin to conserve. There's two very likely outcomes... market pressures make oil and oil products mostly prohibitively expensive and drove everything up or we create alternative energy and resource pathways that acknowledge our actual needs and not the gluttony and greed of corporate profits.
1
@ and let's be real honest... OF COURSE they said it earlier than it actually happens... they had to in order to have any hope or chance to change course
1
@ it all bad... all of it... they're all finite... exactly how finite is something we've begun to brush up against. Our resource dilemmas are becoming greater and greater as populations increase due to the previous waste and inefficiency. In the 70s.. mining such materials to transition would make sense... it was a crusade for 50 years and by the time anyone got anything meaningful done it was too late... oil and mining had already gutted so much that the only things left to do are extremely impractical, don't produce enough or obliterate our few remaining natural environments. We're now deciding how we collapse. The question is NOT oil vs renewables. The question is collapse horrifically to wage slavery or retain basic human dignity in a controlled collapse we've begun calling degrowth. The former is what corporations want to continue the same system that makes them powerful and us powerless. And pretty much no one has any clue what to do about the latter due to the corporate bs and marketing.
1
@ 50 years is a bit of an inaccurate estimate, it assumes a lot, and of course... when we aren't able to keep up with demand without raising prices significantly that all becomes more valuable... we'll be old and senile by then... we won't even remember what we used the stuff for and our kids will be growing hemp like crazy to burn for biomass to keep us alive... we hope... it'll be fine...
1
@ I literally grow plants in a laboratory setting and study them. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here though.
1
@ There is no ability to transition in the manner we've been sold. The alternative being sold is we can just keep using oil. And that's not suspicious to you? We have technologies that could end energy dependence and costs entirely. We just aren't even close to being told what they are... for example... a solar array in space beamed down Star Trek style is literally capable of occurring. And would provide enormous energy, without interruption, for at least half a century at a cost and resource use that's minimal. And that's just one method we're not considering. The entire problem is we're looking to continue to use oil and methane and coal in any manner... and think we can just replace them like we're upgrading the power plant in a video game. It's all bs and it's bad for you.
1
And the mining we need to produce stuff would decimate what's left of our environments.
1
Then start adapting them to make transportation minimal and mostly unnecessary.
1
@matthewFJB Yeah!! We already mined earth to destroy it for profit with oil, coal and methane... how dare those liberals attempt to do it with rare earth minerals after we've tried to mine everything possible for over a century... The fact is that we're at the end of the resources we need to survive long term. No one thinks beyond their lifetime. The next ice age? Who cares... I'm cold now and need to feed my fart machine so I can bang on a visual calculator and make my boss happy.
1