Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:58:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
>
bliss

>
No, for the sake of civilization.

 
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
 
Yet both were civilizations.

>
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy.  Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet.  Maybe a 10X crash.  The primary cause of the crash would be the
lack of tractors and harvesters.  The secondary cause of the crash would
be fertilizers.

He didn't restrict his statement to "present civilization".

And some parts of the Third World may be civilized in an old enough
way to get along, if not just fine, then at least not catastrphically.

Many of the targets of Starlink, for example, would not miss the
Internet (or even cellphones), since they don't have them presently
(if they did, they wouldn't /need/ Starlink). After a few generations
of population growth, they can repopulate the cities at an appropriate
technological level (ie, horses). If not before.

Of course, you may be thinking the way Tillich did when he reported
that he was appalled that the Germans, "the most highly cultered
nation on Earth", descended so quickly into barbarism in the
1930s/1940s: he was treating the cultured frosting on top of the cake
as the whole cake. The cultured Germans may have been the most highly
etc, but the remain 99% or so were not.

Just because /our/ civilization (in the USA/Commonwealth/Europe) is
totally dependent on cheap energy doesn't mean that /all/ current
civilizations are as fragile.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"