Slashdot Mirror

That said, I'm not sure that the study isn't bullshit, but just because people from big oil are attached, doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

They are not just "attached" to big oil - they are nutcases.
That "crazy scientist" stereotype? That's them.
And not just crazy - also ignorant. And dishonest.
See above for links to earlier retarded notions of people who run this kinda "research" about windmills and how they create global warming.

There is a real non-zero risk of fossil fuels becoming banned worldwide unless there's a solution to counteract it.

Let's say I have that same non-zero amount of money in my pocket. Would you sell me a burger, a pair of shoes, a suit, a car or a house for it?
Now compare THAT to the value of all the oil sold in the world in a day.

Yeaah... Not really the same kind of incentive is it?
That non-zero that's supposedly in play (only if you're into conspiracy theories) and that other very-much-not-zero counted in trillions of dollars annually.
Clearly, they must be shaking in their boots, fearing a "global ban", with such a tiny hold on the global market.

Which is why they are investing in crappy PR-usable "studies" by people spreading FUD about renewable energy.
David W. Keith was also against solar just a few years ago, until he got called out on it by the scientific community, using some very basic math.
He claimed solar cells were heating up the atmosphere more than the coal plants they'd be replacing. Because they're black.

These guys are not your "scientists for the science's sake" or even "scientists for the benefit from research sake".
They are corporate shills with an axe to grind with the rest of the scientific community.
I.e. Cooks and loons no one ever took seriously - apart from some corps looking for some PR FUDer.

Oh and BTW... study IS bullshit.
It talks about tens of thousands of flights of non-existent planes (12000 flights in 2035, 60000 in 2047), which would have to be designed and built, reaching the number of around 100 planes, flown from some 40 global bases, spreading millions of tons of SO2 all over the globe...

It's a mad scientist's masturbation fantasy for a Jules Verne world of an Earth with no borders, but one where ecology is not yet a word.

You know... kinda thing a dishonest cook might come up with and a corp's PR department might finance cause it's cheap in comparison to their lobbying budgets.

Infographic: The Properties of Money

Uses of Money
- Medium of Exchange
- Unit of Account
- Store of Value

Properties of Money
- Acceptable: People must be able to use it for transactions
- Divisible: Can be subdivided into smaller units
- Durable: Must withstand repeated use
- Fungible: One unit is interchangeable with another
- Portable: Can be carried around and transferred to others
- Supply Limit: Supply in circulation keeps value relatively constant
- Uniform: The same denomination must have the same purchasing power

Does Bitcoin meet all of these?

Many beat them to it, some several times over.

"They are the most successful company in history (at this exact moment)." Tomorrow may be different.

Actually, they are not. They are in the top 10, but there were more than a few worth more, and arguably Aramco and PetroChina are still worth more today.

BS. The Dutch East Indian Trading company was worth over $7 TRILLION in today's dollars. In fact, several were - or are - worth more than Apple. But you go ahead like the good fanboi we know you are!

With an alarming 68% of all energy produced going to waste...

Eliminate Facebook, Twitter, Instagram....etc, and all Advertising data collection, processing and delivery. That might make a dent

With an alarming 68% of all energy produced going to waste regardless of how it was generated it makes more sense to improve how the energy is used.

If that was true, why have you not taken advantage of the market opportunity and undercut current energy producers by 68%?

You could be a billionaire within a year. You could be the first trillionaire within a decade.

Why would someone not do that? Because the premise isn't true.

With an alarming 68% of all energy produced going to waste regardless of how it was generated it makes more sense to improve how the energy is used.

With Microsoft , you're quite wrong. Of the tech giants, Microsoft is by far the most diverse in terms of revenue.

$70 trillion in market cap for all publicly traded companies. Bitcoin? $240 billion. Bitcoin is around 0.3% of the market cap of publicly traded companies, I don't think people are rushing from stocks to BTC, and I don't think a BTC crash to $0 would create much of any issue for stocks (other than people trying to jump back in to stocks, to stem their losses from BTC).

Banks and exchanges are barely starting to look at this because the whole Cryptocurrency market is still pocket change compared to "traditional" financial world.
Crypto market cap hovers at around 200 billion dollars(*), while an article from 2016(**) lists 60 major stock exchanges worldwide totaling 69 trillion dollars. Rounded up, it means Crypto represents 0.29% of the overall market.
As I was saying... pocket change. Banks didn't even give a shit. They start giving a shit because the blip on the radar starts looking like it's here to stay, and they obviously want to get their dirty paws on some of that shit early.

  (*) https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...
  (**) http://www.visualcapitalist.co...

> Amazon is making less profit, paying employees more, and paying less taxes. Really? http://www.visualcapitalist.co... Seems like Amazon is making a shitload more money than last year to me.

Don't confuse market cap, overall revenue, and UK profits with each other.

Their "market" isn't larger...having a larger population doesn't mean you have a larger market.

http://www.visualcapitalist.co...

They are, but they aren't as limited as you'd think... How many times have we been "running out of oil"?

Anywhere between 1 and 0, depending on your perspective. After all, we are still running out of oil, as the actual reserves are not going up.

There are more reserves today than there were 30 years ago. The "proven reserves" number keeps going up each year, not down...

See, this is where you're confused. We don't have more reserves today. There is less oil on the planet than there was 30 years ago, and the accessibility rate has gone down. That's why more existing fields have been located, it doesn't make more oil appear.

And the actual calculations based on expected amounts are in existence, and I'm not aware of any that were so pessimistic that they would have run out already.

Yes, that is true... no one seems to want to point out the easiest solution... Reduced population... If we could get the planets population down to 1 billion, we'd ALL be much better off...

That's not an easy solution. You may be confusing simple and easy. But no, there are plenty of Malthusians.

This goes beyond man-made climate change (which I believe is real), it goes to food and water supplies, it goes to land use, and other natural resources. No one talks about copper use, but we are using copper at a rapid rate, but it gets no press... and it is just as critical to our modern society as oil is. Yes, it can be recycled, but we don't do it enough, we dump it in landfills.

Maybe you need to get out more. There's plenty of conversations on the subject.

If in 2100 we have 15 trillion people and have cut 50% of our CO2 per person, then nothing has changed.

If in 2100, we have 15 trillion people, then that means...women are going to have to be having lots and lots of children.

May want to check your numbers a bit.

Actually, even the War Resisters League estimates only 45% goes to the military, past and present.

The next two biggest chunks are Medicare and Social Security

If you want to look at discretionary spending, this chart breaks it down, with each subitem sized in proportion to the total.

http://www.numbersleuth.org/wo...
http://www.visualcapitalist.co...
http://www.24hgold.com/english... this one would seem to indicate your premise in the sense that there is actually very little gold "consumed".

He also notes "Based on available information, the 166,606-tonne figure seems to be the most accurate. However, the 1,200,000 figure wouldn’t surprise me at all. As Philip Barton says it so well, “No claim to precision can be made with regard to the amount of gold in the world. All that can be done is to try to arrive at an educated approximation, based on such vague evidence as is available.”

Gives you an idea of what the time-scales are:

A Forecast of When We'll Run Out of Each Metal - Visual Capitalist

China warns that its rare earth minerals are running out (Wired UK)

Society seems to have a lot of denialists, denial that we can ever run out any mineral with arguments like oh but the sea is 0.0003ppm of that mineral which means there is x tonnes of it left or the crust is 0.05% of a particular mineral so there is no problem. Of course these numbers are not particularly relevant, what is relevant is how 'clumped' these minerals are and mow much it costs to extract them, if the cost is too high then we will effectively have run out for all practical purposes.