I can add that I do not have a political stance regarding this movement, but I do care when some political and non-political forces threaten the fundamental principles of democracy, including the freedom of assembly in this case.
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 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
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's how to think in round numbers about fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.
In 2022 we've consumed about 8 billion tons of coal, 4 billion tons of oil and 3 billion tons of natural gas. The carbon content of these fossil fuels is about 75%, 85% and 75% [4]. Overall about 6 billion tons of carbon come from coal and another 6 billion tons from oil and gas combined. Since one atom of carbon (mass = 12) produces one molecule of CO2 (mass = 12+2*16=44), we get that 12 billion tons of carbon emit about 44 billion tons of CO2. This accounts for about 90% of all the greenhouse emissions (about 50 billion equivalent tons of CO2).
There are about 30 million seconds in one year. That means we burn about 400 tons of carbon per second. Carbon has an energy content of about 33 MJ/kg, so that's about 13000 GW (thermal). It's more than that, because the hydrogen in oil and natural gas contribute too, so let's say it's about 15000 GW thermal.
If we want to replace all this with solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear power, we need somehow to come up with 15000 GW of installed capacity. For comparison the world has added about 300 GW of solar and wind capacity in 2022 [5]. At this pace it would take us 50 years.
The pace will increase for sure, but on the other hand the world will consume more energy too.
Well, this is where we are. Draw your own conclusions.
While I agree it will take a long time we can be doing much better by not expanding unnecessary oil and focus on regulation which will also cut emissions. But at the end of the day there needs to be serious effort put in rather than a 'just enough to keep people complicit in our spiral to nothingness'
14 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadOr is it simply aimed at the list visible stuff like transportation?
I cannot take this seriously
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
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.
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.
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.
What's their take with nuclear energy?
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.
In 2022 we've consumed about 8 billion tons of coal, 4 billion tons of oil and 3 billion tons of natural gas. The carbon content of these fossil fuels is about 75%, 85% and 75% [4]. Overall about 6 billion tons of carbon come from coal and another 6 billion tons from oil and gas combined. Since one atom of carbon (mass = 12) produces one molecule of CO2 (mass = 12+2*16=44), we get that 12 billion tons of carbon emit about 44 billion tons of CO2. This accounts for about 90% of all the greenhouse emissions (about 50 billion equivalent tons of CO2).
There are about 30 million seconds in one year. That means we burn about 400 tons of carbon per second. Carbon has an energy content of about 33 MJ/kg, so that's about 13000 GW (thermal). It's more than that, because the hydrogen in oil and natural gas contribute too, so let's say it's about 15000 GW thermal.
If we want to replace all this with solar panels and wind turbines and nuclear power, we need somehow to come up with 15000 GW of installed capacity. For comparison the world has added about 300 GW of solar and wind capacity in 2022 [5]. At this pace it would take us 50 years.
The pace will increase for sure, but on the other hand the world will consume more energy too.
Well, this is where we are. Draw your own conclusions.
[1] https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set...
[2] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-sta...
[3]https://www.statista.com/statistics/265344/total-global-natu....
[4] https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/b...
[5] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/22/new-global-solar-capa....