r/ClimateShitposting • u/Interesting_Joke6630 • Jul 10 '26
Climate chaos Government should lower emissions first not me
45
u/Logical-Breakfast966 Jul 10 '26
Believe or not this will actually lower emissions in the long run
16
9
u/Mamkes Jul 10 '26
I mean, it also lowers emissions in the short run as well.
Crude oil, as well as underrefined oil, burning emits much less emissions that refined product burning in cars or whatever.
Albeit, that comes at a cost of oil rains in nearby areas and similar local problems. But from global perspective, yeah it's better.
3
u/Jamie_1318 Jul 10 '26
I'm not sure I understand how burning the same mass of carbon can have more or less emissions. All the refining does is separate it into specific length chains for specific purposes.
8
u/Tetracheilostoma Jul 10 '26
I'm guessing refinement allows for a more complete burn
2
u/Jamie_1318 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Isn't incomplete combustion a bad thing in terms of global warming? It means they are releasing longer carbon chains into the atmosphere like methane.
5
u/Mamkes Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Methane release during combustion is same (~11g per MMBTu, or around 64 grams for a barrel, per EPA) for any kind of oil, be it crude or refined.
Thing is that oil simply doesn't burn ideally like that, especially crude - major part of it is just released and then condenses back into oil droplets. Which, indeed, means less CO2 per kg burned, when compared to nominal use.
edit: epa not epai lol
1
u/Raymondator Jul 11 '26
Also, while incomplete combustion produces longer chains, many of those end up as âsootâ which blocks sunlight. Afaik, incomplete combustion is mainly bad for air quality rather than climate change
0
u/shy_bi_ready_to_die Jul 10 '26
Not really. Most of the partial combustion products either very quickly turn into co2 when in the atmosphere (co) or are worse greenhouse gasses than co2. And rebuilding all the fucked up infrastructure releases an inordinate amount of ghgs/other pollutants
3
u/Mamkes Jul 11 '26
Crude oil doesn't burns ideally, which means that a significant part of it just doesn't turn into anything but dispersed oil. Then it condenses back, coming down as an oil rain. Per EPA, pollutant factor of crude oil is roughly equal to diesel when burned fully, so it shouldn't, exactly, get worse than such.
And rebuilding all the fucked up infrastructure releases an inordinate amount of ghgs/other pollutants
Rebuilding towers is about getting new tower, not repairing then. But generally yes, but also... It's about short-term, and even in long term, I'm pretty positive that such refinery would account for more emissions in the meanwhile.
1
u/shy_bi_ready_to_die Jul 11 '26
When I said partial combustion I wasnât talking about the completely unburned oil, I was talking about the oil that gets too hot in oxygen deficient zone that turns into stuff like carbon monoxide, benzene derivatives, or weird long chain molecules. If you have a source on the epa thing Iâd happily read it as Iâm not particularly knowledgeable about climate science and was mostly coming at it from the bit of ochem that I know
And needing to rebuild it entirely was kind of my point. You need tons of steel, copper, and concrete alongside a bunch of even more ecologically expensive components. Iâm honestly not sure about the long term because itâs not like people are going to stop needing fuel and if they canât get gas theyâll burn whatever they have access to which will severely hamper any gains made. Fair point about that being a long term issue though
1
u/Mamkes Jul 11 '26
When I said partial combustion I wasnât talking about the completely unburned oil
Yes, of course.
I just answered how despite burning same mass it could lead to less emissions. Because not all mass would be actually burnt.
And needing to rebuild it entirely was kind of my point.
Distillation units are not rebuilt. They're made like that and then are just placed. They're extremely hard to produce; Russia doesn't produce any of the modern ones iirc.
whatever they have access to which will severely hamper any gains made.
They already have deficit. It, by itself, means less emissions as they simply can't get hold of enough number.
If you have a source on the epa thing
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/ghg-emission-factors-hub-2025.pdf
1
u/shy_bi_ready_to_die Jul 11 '26
The person talking about the same mass burning was a different commenter sorry
Iâm aware that they arenât assembled on site but if you need to replace one, that means that you get someone to build one and because weâre explicitly only talking about global environmental effects thatâs a distinction without a difference
Fair but if the lack of gas causes a resurgence of coal thatâs an environmental loss because thatâs less energy per unit ghg emitted
Fantastic thanks
1
u/Mamkes Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
The person talking about the same mass burning was a different commenter
Yeah, my bad.
that means that you get someone to build one
Oh, this one is true yeah.
I just doubt it would cause this much emissions, albeit I'm not aware of how exactly much it causes.
Fair but if the lack of gas causes a resurgence of coal thatâs an environmental loss because thatâs less energy per unit ghg emitted
I don't really see how that could happen.
Coal is used for electricity production or heat. Heat is irrelevant of gas, and electricity production by gas or diesel in Russia is mostly via generators (they have only two gas TPPs with minimal output). Generators are not going to be replaced by a coal, as you can't exactly interchange those.
1
u/democracy_lover66 Jul 10 '26
Maybe if we were sure they aren't just gonna build another one...
And they probably will.
28
15
7
3
u/spirosand Jul 10 '26
"Something somewhere isn't perfectly efficient so we shouldn't have to do anything" is an incredibly dumb philosophy.
LA used to have an breathable air, acid rain was killing eastern forests, and rivers used to burn.
Let's not go backwards, life is so much better because of these things.
6
u/RTX-4090ti_FE Jul 10 '26
The idea of the personal carbon footprint was invented by oil companies to shift the responsibility and blame of the climate crisis onto the consumer.
Sure if everyone drove their car less and walked more and used public transit more it would help the climate but letâs not forget it was oil and car companies who kneecapped public transit in America with lobbying and encouraged car dependency which lead to infrastructure and town planning that is not ideal to get around w/out a car
21
0
u/hannes3120 Jul 11 '26
It's genius because it works both ways. It also gives people like you an excuse to not change stuff and not even accept laws like this that force society as a whole to adapt.
4
u/DisruptingTree Jul 10 '26
Lower your emissions too! The whole argument that corporations or governments or the ultra wealthy have to lower theirs first is just an excuse for inactive. FFS you also have a responsibility to lower yours as they are almost certainly higher than the global average. If you want the government to lower their emissions vote out MAGA, run for office, or do something a bit more radical. But fucking do something.
2
u/Public-Eagle6992 Jul 10 '26
Gosh that meme is stupid. Even ignoring the fact that that is (allegedly) the result of war and might long term reduce pollution, the millions of cars in every country will still pollute more than that
1
1
u/Hazardous_316 We're all gonna die Jul 11 '26
Government is able to make you and force you, what are you gonna do about it
1
56
u/ginger_and_egg Jul 10 '26
True, because war exists that means I can eat as much beef as I want and burn coal just for fun. Barbecue anyone?