6 ms·

I just don't understand how people can say that we can end fossil fuel consumption. Do they think it is a moonshot or do they really mean it? Did they really re

by Glawen 3y ago

I just don't understand how people can say that we can end fossil fuel consumption. Do they think it is a moonshot or do they really mean it? Did they really researched what it means? Don't they realise that everything in our world is made of fossil fuel and its derivative? Or is it simply aimed at the list visible stuff like transportation? I cannot take this seriously

Morzaram 3y ago
I think you underestimate the diverse background and the amount of brain power within last generation. There are scientists that specialize specifically in adaptation and renewable energy. While yes our world is made around fossil fuels there are alternatives that are available now you just need to look. And instead of stopping fossil fuel expansion and focus on at least taking steps on getting off of them like they are asking, demanding, begging. The world leaders are expanding oil, literally the opposite. There are no clean fossil fuels, no clean coal, we need to switch to renewables as fast as possible. Instead we're doing the opposite in not giving out oil field licenses, leaving high CO2 emitting markets unregulated and allowing for more brown coal extraction. (Zbg: Lutzerath) We're in deep, and getting off fossil fuels by 2030 is a long shot but what options do we have unless we want millions displaced or dead? I commend them for fighting so hard despite Germany almost labeling them terrorists and so many people wanting them dead for being a nucense. Lastly look at how little has changed even with the 'calm' and 'peaceful' protests... Not much. The tipping point is near and reducing your carbon footprint will do nothing. This literally came from Shell as a way to spin the blame off of them. The government is the only way out whether we like it or not, so they are some of the ones applying pressure that we need for governments to actually change. So I believe it's better to try than to say 'we can't do this, that's a moonshot' and give up
- Glawen 3y ago
  >what options do we have unless we want millions displaced or dead? If the tipping point is as close as they claim, then that's the only logical thing that will happen. The way I see it is that the world will fight for the remaining oil, plummeting food production will kill millions. That's what I believe plan is currently.
flangola7 3y ago
Fossil fuels are a finite supply. In more and more locations it is simply not economically viable to pull it out of the ground, though we will be dying in foodstuff and water wars before they completely tap out. The end of fossil fuel consumption is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. The only variable is if it happens by us or to us.
pasabagi 3y ago
I think there's a bit of nuance here: many things like plastics or steel are either high enough value that you can offset the CO2 with tree farming, or not too horrible in the first place. Generally, if you're going to use a hydrocarbon as a feedstock for some chemical process, there's no necessary environmental problem there, as long as the carbon doesn't end up in the atmosphere. A lot of the really gratuitous damage is done by coal-fired power plants, and gas-burning cars. Both are readily replacable, both are only marginally more economical than their alternatives, and both put an enormous economic burden on future generations.
- Glawen 3y ago
  Does it mean that their aim is France without internal combustion vehicle? That's already the EU goal, it is a bit later than their schedule but that is the target. What's their take with nuclear energy?
  - pasabagi 3y ago
    With protest groups, the aims tend to be more political, and less technical - the problem is not what should be done, but rather, how to force politicians to do it. With climate change, the pressing problem is that while almost everybody agrees on the broad strokes of what needs to change, we're prevaricating on the implementation. My feeling is that I wouldn't take the actual technical policy proposal stuff from the activist environmentalists too seriously - it's often not what they're interested in. What they are good at, and interested in, is forcing the problem of the coming catastrophe to the forefront of our imaginations and our conversations. Climate change is ultimately a problem of political will, not policy.

by Glawen 3y ago

Morzaram 3y ago

I think you underestimate the diverse background and the amount of brain power within last generation. There are scientists that specialize specifically in adaptation and renewable energy. While yes our world is made around fossil fuels there are alternatives that are available now you just need to look. And instead of stopping fossil fuel expansion and focus on at least taking steps on getting off of them like they are asking, demanding, begging. The world leaders are expanding oil, literally the opposite. There are no clean fossil fuels, no clean coal, we need to switch to renewables as fast as possible. Instead we're doing the opposite in not giving out oil field licenses, leaving high CO2 emitting markets unregulated and allowing for more brown coal extraction. (Zbg: Lutzerath) We're in deep, and getting off fossil fuels by 2030 is a long shot but what options do we have unless we want millions displaced or dead? I commend them for fighting so hard despite Germany almost labeling them terrorists and so many people wanting them dead for being a nucense. Lastly look at how little has changed even with the 'calm' and 'peaceful' protests... Not much. The tipping point is near and reducing your carbon footprint will do nothing. This literally came from Shell as a way to spin the blame off of them. The government is the only way out whether we like it or not, so they are some of the ones applying pressure that we need for governments to actually change. So I believe it's better to try than to say 'we can't do this, that's a moonshot' and give up

Glawen 3y ago
>what options do we have unless we want millions displaced or dead? If the tipping point is as close as they claim, then that's the only logical thing that will happen. The way I see it is that the world will fight for the remaining oil, plummeting food production will kill millions. That's what I believe plan is currently.

flangola7 3y ago

Fossil fuels are a finite supply. In more and more locations it is simply not economically viable to pull it out of the ground, though we will be dying in foodstuff and water wars before they completely tap out. The end of fossil fuel consumption is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. The only variable is if it happens by us or to us.

pasabagi 3y ago

I think there's a bit of nuance here: many things like plastics or steel are either high enough value that you can offset the CO2 with tree farming, or not too horrible in the first place. Generally, if you're going to use a hydrocarbon as a feedstock for some chemical process, there's no necessary environmental problem there, as long as the carbon doesn't end up in the atmosphere. A lot of the really gratuitous damage is done by coal-fired power plants, and gas-burning cars. Both are readily replacable, both are only marginally more economical than their alternatives, and both put an enormous economic burden on future generations.

Glawen 3y ago
Does it mean that their aim is France without internal combustion vehicle? That's already the EU goal, it is a bit later than their schedule but that is the target. What's their take with nuclear energy?
- pasabagi 3y ago
  With protest groups, the aims tend to be more political, and less technical - the problem is not what should be done, but rather, how to force politicians to do it. With climate change, the pressing problem is that while almost everybody agrees on the broad strokes of what needs to change, we're prevaricating on the implementation. My feeling is that I wouldn't take the actual technical policy proposal stuff from the activist environmentalists too seriously - it's often not what they're interested in. What they are good at, and interested in, is forcing the problem of the coming catastrophe to the forefront of our imaginations and our conversations. Climate change is ultimately a problem of political will, not policy.