I remember a ‘not just bikes’ video on which he showed a video from the 80-90s that was literally this setup: a teenager suddenly has to live without oil products, and they pick specific large impact things to get the pre determined result: the teenager is happy for all the oil products.
Yes, we are using it for a lot of different things. A lot of industries just don’t want to find some large scale replacement, because why would they without incentives.
We do have alternatives for a lot of things, just not mass produced or optimized.
The goal should not be to get rid of it completely (because that is incredibly hard, and might be overly complex), the goal is to get rid of things as much as possible and some products primarily, because burning petroleum is probably the most stupid way of usage.
And yes burning it as fuel is the most stupid way of using it. The message shouldn’t be “We can’t live without it” but “If it is soooo useful, why we just burn it?”
I think it’s a fascinating premise, and it should be discussed more widely. Clearly she is making a point about what we use oil for that isn’t massively contributing to climate change. Clearly the goal should still be to stop burning the stuff, and the methane that is produced as a byproduct of petroleum distillation in such great quantities that most of it is just set on fire.
But using it in plastic packaging isn’t so straightforwardly bad. It’s a huge volume of waste, yes, and it is burned in many places around the world, making it a carbon pollutant. However, if it is stuck in landfill, it largely stays there and does not increase atmospheric carbon levels, certainly not to the extent that burning fossil fuels does.
If we can solve the microplastic problem, which doesn’t seem impossible, and if we can make sure it mostly ends up in landfill instead of littering the environment (which is a big ask) there’s no reason plastics cannot be derived from oil for a long time to come, and not do that much harm.
This will allow us to minimise the damage we cause before we develop the ability to cheaply make plastics from the atmosphere itself, through bioplastics or directly through some chemical synthesis.
Even with carbon-neutral plastic production, we will still need to not litter it all over the place, because it won’t degrade immediately. So we should definitely work on that with current plastics too.
This is like oil propaganda.
I remember a ‘not just bikes’ video on which he showed a video from the 80-90s that was literally this setup: a teenager suddenly has to live without oil products, and they pick specific large impact things to get the pre determined result: the teenager is happy for all the oil products.
Yes, we are using it for a lot of different things. A lot of industries just don’t want to find some large scale replacement, because why would they without incentives. We do have alternatives for a lot of things, just not mass produced or optimized. The goal should not be to get rid of it completely (because that is incredibly hard, and might be overly complex), the goal is to get rid of things as much as possible and some products primarily, because burning petroleum is probably the most stupid way of usage.
You probably mean this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrg5eRJVTA
And yes burning it as fuel is the most stupid way of using it. The message shouldn’t be “We can’t live without it” but “If it is soooo useful, why we just burn it?”
I think it’s a fascinating premise, and it should be discussed more widely. Clearly she is making a point about what we use oil for that isn’t massively contributing to climate change. Clearly the goal should still be to stop burning the stuff, and the methane that is produced as a byproduct of petroleum distillation in such great quantities that most of it is just set on fire.
But using it in plastic packaging isn’t so straightforwardly bad. It’s a huge volume of waste, yes, and it is burned in many places around the world, making it a carbon pollutant. However, if it is stuck in landfill, it largely stays there and does not increase atmospheric carbon levels, certainly not to the extent that burning fossil fuels does.
If we can solve the microplastic problem, which doesn’t seem impossible, and if we can make sure it mostly ends up in landfill instead of littering the environment (which is a big ask) there’s no reason plastics cannot be derived from oil for a long time to come, and not do that much harm.
This will allow us to minimise the damage we cause before we develop the ability to cheaply make plastics from the atmosphere itself, through bioplastics or directly through some chemical synthesis.
Even with carbon-neutral plastic production, we will still need to not litter it all over the place, because it won’t degrade immediately. So we should definitely work on that with current plastics too.
TBH microplastics worry me a lot more than CO2
I’m now realising that the Simpsons zinc video was probably a parody of said oil propaganda video.
EDIT: The oil video was later by the looks of it. Although I suspect similar ideas have been done earlier.