3 ms·
Many will point out that GDP isn't everything, and they're right, but you are asking the right questions. Consider that human development has always been about
by prottog 4y ago
Many will point out that GDP isn't everything, and they're right, but you are asking the right questions. Consider that human development has always been about more energy expended per capita, and using that energy to shape our environment so that life gets better. A footpath that gets muddy in the rain becomes (with more energy) a Roman road paved with stone becomes (with yet more energy) a modern asphalt highway, each progressively letting people travel further with greater ease.
With that in mind, and considering that fossil fuels are for now still the cheapest and most reliable source of energy for those who need it the most -- that is, the global poor -- I think an immediate phase-out of fossil fuels without an equivalent alternative is a non-starter, climate change or not. There is a lot of investment into renewable energy sources so it's possible that we reach that point of equivalence soon, though.
In terms of climate change itself, the argument I find most persuasive to significantly reduce emissions is to prevent geopolitical instability arising from climate-related natural disasters, mainly crop failure and famine. I happen to think that there's more pessimism than warranted in that regard, but nonetheless it's a real risk.
- jonnycomputer 4y agoNot energy. Work per capita. Expending 120 million joules of energy to travel every 15 miles is a much poorer outcome that spending 120 million joules to travel 45.
- prottog 4y agoNow we're bargaining for efficiency ;-) of course it's pointless to burn energy for no output. But it is strictly better to be in a position where one can easily expend 120 million joules on anything, than in one where there is a scarcity of available energy.
- trabant00 4y agoIt's not only for the poor. An immediate phase-out of fossil fuels would mean instant civilization collapse and billions dead. Not being able to grow and transport food, not being able to process raw materials, nothing that requires plastic, etc.
- prottog 4y agoI absolutely agree with you. I think anti-fossil-fuel activists extrapolate how easily somebody could switch their ICE car to an EV, or better yet change their lifestyles to one that doesn't need a car, to the orders of magnitude higher energy requirements behind the scenes that support modern life that cannot feasibly be run on alternative sources any time soon -- construction, shipping, agriculture, mining, etc.
- Izkata 4y agoI also expect a lot of them don't think about where the power in their car's charging station comes from.