Total phaseout of fossil fuels

[Moriarte]

One half of the world wants to phaseout oil and coal by some specified date (usually 2050 is mentioned).

The other half (India, China, Russia, some African countries) maintains that their current and future economies need to continue extraction and trade in fossil fuels beyond that date. "Total phaseout" is seen as existential danger to their economies and, ultimately, international competitiveness.

Greens erupt as fossil fuel ‘phaseout’ is dropped from proposed climate deal

“COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure,” former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said. But organizers of the summit in Dubai urged nations to be flexible and compromise.

www.politico.com

Is total phase out fair?

[anonymous poll included]

 

[Birdjaguar]

I voted yes, but I am unlikely to be still around by then.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The premier of my province is an idiot. She's decided that green energy is evil and has been spewing her own fantasy version of science. She thinks solar energy is not feasible because it gets cold in winter. Oh, and Justin Trudeau is coming for everyone's car and Rachel Notley wants to have her people barge into everyone's house and forcibly inoculate everyone against covid. And something about 15-minute cities meaning that there are cops stationed every 15-minutes from your home, preventing you from moving one step beyond.

As someone pointed out on FB, hello! The International Space Station runs on solar power. It's a hell of a lot colder in space than it is during the worst Alberta winter, and the astronauts manage just fine.

I don't know how to counter the rest of it. We're being "governed" by a crazy woman and her band of sociopathic thugs.

 

[amadeus]

For energy or for everything? Unless we’re going to stop using plastics and steel, we’re going to need some of that coal and oil.

 

[Ajidica]

Does "total phase-out" come with certain exceptions? I was under the impression there are certain uses for oil and coal - such as making lubricants, certain plastics, and metallurgical processes - that are extremely difficult to accomplish with "green/renewable" sources.

 

[Moriarte]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1734248702737346624

^^ That's the official position of EU Climate Commissioner.

And here's how the other side responds: (taken from article in the OP)

But representatives of other countries, including a bloc that includes China and India, said they would not accept any language proposing either a “phaseout” or “phase-down” of specific energy sources.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Those who call for a complete phaseout of plastics have obviously forgotten all the ways plastics are used in medicine. When the push to eliminate single-use plastic items came about in Canada, I actually had to explain to people that diabetics can't re-use the plastic items we need for testing and insulin injection.

Personally, I'd like to mail a box of bamboo forks to the federal Environment Minister and tell him he can only use those to eat with. The aftertaste is absolutely foul.

I keep and reuse my plastic cutlery. Sure, they can't be reliably washed in a dishwasher, but have people not heard of handwashing, the way we used to do it?

 

[Samson]

For energy or for everything? Unless we’re going to stop using plastics and steel, we’re going to need some of that coal and oil.

Does "total phase-out" come with certain exceptions? I was under the impression there are certain uses for oil and coal - such as making lubricants, certain plastics, and metallurgical processes - that are extremely difficult to accomplish with "green/renewable" sources.

I would say this is a semantic point. If we are not burning them but using them as the start of a chemical synthesis process it is not fuel and it is not necessary to release the carbon as CO2.

Steel can be made with an electric arc furnace.

 

[amadeus]

@Samson

My intent was not a “gotcha” but a clarification of the question, which I would say has been answered: no, this would not mean the phaseout of using coal and oil.

The reason I asked in the first place was because I’m a layman on environment stuff and would assume that there’s some pollution caused by their use and extraction, and when the protest is “abolish oil,” it’s not clear messaging I think on their part about what it is they really want.

 

[Arwon]

For energy or for everything? Unless we’re going to stop using plastics and steel, we’re going to need some of that coal and oil.

Steel probably not, by then. There's other methods.

 

[Arwon]

Just for all the "but what about plastics" stuff out there, it's small bikkies.

World energy production is about 600 EJ a year, about 190 oil, 170 coal, 140 gas, and non energy use of all fuels was about 38 EJ, mostly oil, some gas. Coke, ie metallurgy, use of coal is only about another 4 EJ and blast furnaces another 8 EJ.

Energy, either direct heat usages or electricity generation, really is overwhelmingly the game.

 

[Nick723]

I voted no, because of the 2050 date quoted. I don’t think it’s possible in that timeframe. However a phase out of fossil fuels is what we need, I just think it’ll be in the 2070-2100 range.

‘Net zero’, whilst a more nebulous goal, is likely still achievable by 2050 if we get our act together. That also allows the more developed nations to ‘overachieve’.

 

[soundjata]

Really it is not that complicated:
1. Increasing our global energy use = BAD
2. Reducing our global energy use = GOOD

So I am undecided on the question raised here because it is IMO a red herring designed to blame the usual suspects (OPEC etc...) of the gloomy climate situation we are in.
(And also make the other usual suspects aka western nations look like angels)

How to achieve goal N°2 is an interesting question

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I understand the frustration many countries have about wealthy countries getting to have centuries of unimpeded pollution and the development that caused it, but unfortunately the world is not going to wait for middle and lower income countries to get wealthy via fossil fuels by stopping global warming for 100 years out of a sense of justice. It sucks but the planet doesn’t care and it is what needs to be done.

 

[bene_legionary]

I feel like the problem may have something to do with the fact that economic growth causes increased resource/energy usage (as soundjata says, bad), and governments stay in power with economic growth. If you want economic growth, the path to achieving it is easier with fossil fuel-derived everything, still, which is a shame.

To phase out fossil fuels, either the volume or effiency of green energy generators must increase to the point that fossil fuels are unnecessary (apparently the current path) or peoples' consumption of everything must decrease. The second involves a massive change in culture for everybody, and also risks economic instability, so rightly in a capitalist numbers-game world it's unlikely to happen.

Sometimes I wonder if the question is whether we need economic development, or at least so much of it. At the moment we seem to be trying to have our cake and have it too, by thinking we can achieve continued economic growth alongside a greener economy.

The phase out of fossil fuels has to be done with increasing effect to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change (some of which we are already feeling now), but because traditional economic growth is so dependant on it, we need to give something up for the world to survive.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I sometimes see these proposals and wonder what the fine print looks like. This is how close we get here:

The text released Monday included a list of measures that nations would agree to pursue — albeit voluntarily. They included tripling global capacity of renewables by 2030, doubling the rate of energy savings through efficiency measures, “rapidly phasing down unabated coal” and limiting licenses for new power plants.

or else what? you'll blockade them?

 

[soundjata]

^ It's a scam.
Indeed capitalizm will not slow down and the surface of our planet shall rot and burn.
The devil's laughing

 

[Kaitzilla]

The solution, as always, is to get Fusion Power to work.

I'm certain every video game ever made has emphasized this point.


I wonder if anyone will build solar farm panels in the Sahara?
We can see if anyone cuts the power cable for geopolitical fun.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The solution, as always, is to get Fusion Power to work.

I'm certain every video game ever made has emphasized this point.


I wonder if anyone will build solar farm panels in the Sahara?
We can see if anyone cuts the power cable for geopolitical fun.

What about Microwave Power?

 

[Kaitzilla]

What about Microwave Power?

Those are fun!

So is zoning high density commercial in front of an airport with disasters turned on.