The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China’s top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.
The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China’s top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.
They’re probably right in a very general sense, at least in the short and medium terms. Fossil fuels have a lot of qualities that make them hard to out compete for some tasks. But we can get the usage of them back to levels that aren’t destructive to our habitats. And in the long term it’s absolutely possible to eliminate their use.
Yeap, unfortunately from a engineering standpoint it’s hard not to take advantage of such an energy dense fuel. Even if we had completely invested in nuclear power, there would still be scenarios where it would logistically make more sense to bring fuel to creat energy rather than transporting that energy.
I think it’ll be possible to potentially eliminate their use as a fuel source, but I’m not sure if we’ll ever eliminate our need for hydrocarbons for things like plastics, solvents, and fertilizers.
We need to move away from fossil fuels for obvious reasons, but one of the things I’m kinda afraid of as we transition away from them is that fossil fuels corporations will use the global poor as hostages.
The most populated regions on the globe are dependent on cheap hydrocarbon base fertilizers to maintain the nitrogen content of their soil. The reason these fertilizers are so affordable is their production is a byproduct of massive amounts of fuel refining.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the corporations started to cut the production or access of fertilizer to large populations of the global poor, as a “look at what the leftist are making me do to the poor” tactic.