T O P
MagicRabbit1985

Fossil fuels are like a drug.


bagginsses

It's a hard habit to break. Every segment of our economy is propped up by fossil fuels. Basically it all boils down to energy, and fossil fuels still supply over 80% of it.


belowlight

Let’s just cut out all the non-essential crap involved in simply making some prick or another money and I’m sure we can cope on that 20% that isn’t earth-destroying?


bagginsses

I agree with your point, but we're going to need some serious changes that involve a lot more than just trimming a bit of the fat. I've personally cut out as much consumption as my sanity will permit. I live off-grid, running my house on a few solar panels. I grow most of my own food, don't fly without damn good reason, consider the implications of every vehicle trip I make, buy everything second hand, etc. I figure if the entire planet were living like this, we'd still have a problem with emissions. Industrials account for a huge amount of energy consumption globally. We basically need to figure out how to log, how to mine, how to smelt steel, how to make concrete, etc. without any fossil fuels. These resources aren't really considered non-essential crap, and they account for a huge amount of our global energy consumption. Transportation is the next biggest segment of energy use globally. We know how to decarbonize this sector, but it still isn't happening very quickly. Together, transportation and industrials account for over 50% of our energy use. Do I think we can make meaningful progress in these sectors? I hope so. I'm not sure if cutting out "non-essentials" will be enough. What do we consider non-essential? Where do we draw that line? How? How much of the global energy use is actually in this "non-essential" category?


belowlight

You make many good points in response to mine which was intended to be a bit farcical I suppose. Nevertheless there is some truth in it. I’d like to see how much could be cut out if… People were limited to one holiday by flight per year (or even every 2-3 years… they can enjoy a break locally). Ban private jets. Force the vast majority of manufacturing to be done domestically rather than using dirty power in a developing nation and chugged on a boat across the world to be sold for just $1. Ban the act of exporting trash to another state. Empower an army of Commissars to evaluate how worthy a product is of being manufactured at all. Give individuals a quota of energy consumption they are permitted to use per day and brutally punish those that regularly and substantially exceed their quota. Invest heavily in public transport and follow it up with widespread bans and heavy restrictions on the use of cars. Make travel in a car without at least one passenger illegal unless by special written permission for rare special cases. And so forth…


bigpurplebang

may as well ask for a time machine to go back and prevent the industrial revolution since the time machine is more probable to be invented way before everything else you asked to change.


belowlight

Indeed. Sadly I think the scale of an ecological catastrophe that’s on its way will force far worse living conditions upon generations soon to come and require the most severe measures to attempt whatever mitigation is possible at such a late stage. Personally I think it might well make the industrial revolution having happened or not somewhat irrelevant.


Big_Jim59

No, not "propped up," dependent on. Petroleum is the key ingredient in paint, fertilizers, plastics for medical use, tires, food storage, home and business heating and yes transportation. It is one of the main sources of energy for electrical generation. Our modern society is built on the very foundation of oil and natural gas and thankfully so. What if the would was still burning coal? Just turning off the oil tap fixes nothing but it makes people feel like they are doing something about climate change.


cryptosupercar

Seriously, it’s like watching an addict make and break promises.


belowlight

An addict that properly acknowledges their addiction understands that they can’t promise something they aren’t in control of any longer. The sad thing is that we are in full control of our energy consumption and have made conscious decisions to stick to the course of fossil fuels for decades in full knowledge of the damage it’s causing all around us - all the for the sake of a greedy few.


The_DaHowie

They are also pretty much integrated/ingrained into society and switching grom fossil fuels is going to take more than a month


CyberMindGrrl

Putin is like a violent drug dealer that blows up his neighbor's house, raping his wife and killing his children in front of him because his neighbor decided to stop buying drugs.


MagicRabbit1985

It is not like the other are much better.


CyberMindGrrl

Definitely not.


belowlight

Indeed. Ukraine still have Russian gas flowing through a pipeline across their nation into the EU. And they accept Russian funds to let it flow, all while actually being raped and murdered. I don’t know if it even gets any more cynical.


AgnesTheAtheist

Renewables.


MontanaCCL

But wind causes cancer and kills birds! Solar uses up the sun! Nuculer will kill everyone! Hydro kills fish! What we need is energy independence!!11!! obvious /s


chrisplyon

Yes but they need oil and gas over the next few decades. You could replace all electric generation and heavy trucking with electric tomorrow and you’d still need some fossil fuels for a few decades more. Longer if we are including manufacturing feedstocks.


belowlight

But don’t you know wind turbines and solar panels are so ugly they can’t be near my home!! But i don’t mind a vast smoke stack.


True_Candyman

Well what do you expect? They weren't expecting to need new fossil fuels, because they weren't expecting to dump russian reserves. The planned proportion of fossil fuels to renewables is unchanged by seeking African replacements for Russian fossil fuels. Unless we want an even starker cost of living crisis with energy unaffordable in the short term for the poorest in society, we need to wean off fossil fuels slowly. And given the geopolitical mess around russia right now, that means replacing immediate supply with more immediate supply, not financing more future supply. This isn't a breaking of any agreement on my book, this is pragmatic and keeping to the spirit of the deals made


silence7

Ideally, a crash deployment of heat pumps, renewables, and extension of life for nuclear facilities to sharply reduce the need for fossil fuels entirely. Money spent on new fossil fuel infrastructure is going to need to be scrapped before the end of its useful life, sharply raising overall costs.


True_Candyman

If we could replace them so easy we wouldn't have been buying them from Russia in the first place


silence7

Multiple reasons: * Heat pumps didn't get good enough to handle colder climates until recently. * People thought that having a commercial relationship with Russia would prevent the kind of invasion they just launched * You need to make an up-front investment to switch, and continued gas purchases from Russia didn't involve as much of that * Concerns about nuclear * Social inertia


chrisplyon

This is a silly post title. While technically it’s a new investment, it’s less so given the scenario, it’s a lateral transfer of focus from a volatile supplier to one that’s less volatile. When your entire economy is built around fossil fuels and are in the midst of a transition, this is to be expected given the geopolitical goings on. It’s less like a drug and more like blood. Until we rebuild the economy *completely* around low carbon, zero carbon, and carbon negative systems, we will always need fossil fuels. You can’t blame them for taking their money from one place and putting it somewhere else less volatile.


MontanaCCL

At least with the E.U. the Russian war should lead to a long-term reduction in fossil fuels. But yikes on the short term and development of African nations.


smugempressoftime

Human nature smh


orlyfactor

surprised pikachu face


sinfultictac

This is what happens when no one actually builds safe Nuclear reactors the first time around. Thorium reactors guys it will help.


silence7

Clean electricity is just one part of what we need. Methane gas is used both in the chemicals industry and for space heating. Each of those needs to be shifted off of it. The IPCC has a more [generalized list of what needs to be done in the near future](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png), and nuclear is a relatively small part of it.


QVRedit

Or at least liquid salt reactors.


prophecynotrequired

And supposing they Africans agree to sell their reserves, what happens when they run out ?


silence7

[We can't afford to burn all the proved reserves](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/); that leaves the world with a climate outside the range where we know that it can support civilization.


oddiseeus

They go back to being neglected/irrelevant when they run out of a desirable commodity.


Rude_Operation6701

Can’t fix stupid