> We should have used nuclear and domestic gas to power the 00's and 201X's. We didn't. Its too late now.
Should have. But we didn't. So we can either throw our hands up and give up, or continue and try to mitigate some of the damage.
Now GP has an important point here, forgetting which does a huge disservice to the climate problem mitigation efforts. Namely: our economy is dependent on fossil fuels right now, and until we transition to 100% renewables, it will be. You cannot just cut out fossil fuels, because that would collapse the economy, kill off most of the population, and forever stop any and all efforts at fixing the damage already done. And since our economy is growing, this means new fossil projects.
We absolutely still need to transition off the fossil fuels ASAP. But it's like with operating on a patient with very severe injuries: maintaining life support is more important than fixing the damage. Yes, you want to eventually get the patient off life support, but if you shut it down too early, you'll be trying to stitch up a cadaver.
No one's accusing of you anything... take a deep breath. Being angry on HN isn't going to solve anything.
Our economy is ~really~ dependent on fossil fuels. Eneregy is only part of the problem, there's also transportation. We live in a global economy predicated on cheap, oil-based shipping, and electric alternatives are very far off.
It would be, but it isn't right now. Getting from here to there takes time, and as you replace fossil fuel capacity with renewables, you have to still keep the not yet replaced capacity running. Non-renewable capacity consists of deposits that get exhausted and have to be continuously replaced with new ones. So until we can replace fossil fuels faster than existing sources get depleted, new extraction sites will have to be built.
It keeps taking longer because we keep enabling the highly profitable fossil fuel extraction instead of making the singeing energy cuts and investments in other sources (renewables and nuclear) that we should have made decades ago.
Abrupt and large scale transitions will be an economic shock, bt will not 'crash the economy and kill off most of the population' as you aver. The climatological models are far, far more robust than the economic models we use, and suggesting that an abrupt transition away from fossil fuels is going to kill off most of the population is simple scaremongering. If you actually believe this, then I would like to gently suggest that You've Been Had.
> Abrupt and large scale transitions will be an economic shock, bt will not 'crash the economy
Abrupt enough will, and my point is that we can only go as abrupt as possible without crashing the economy, because crashing the economy is immediate game over (climate change is only a pressing problem because it might eventually break our economy through war and resource pressure).
> suggesting that an abrupt transition away from fossil fuels is going to kill off most of the population is simple scaremongering
Well, I'm looking at how the world works today - how we've concentrated most people in dense cities, and how those people (meaning, us) can be fed only through a highly mechanized and fossil-dependent infrastructure. Oh, and through electricity and supply chains and GPS too. And, we have nuclear weapons now. It's not a matter if an abrupt transition can kill most of the population, it's only a question of how abrupt can we go without that happening.
This is at least a shift from your earlier position. At this rate, we might be able to take action when we have closed only half the remaining distance to the iceberg.
I don't believe my position has shifted, I think I've only failed at communicating it.
I can't tell you how big a shock the economy will survive, only that it has to survive, so whatever shock we apply it must be less than the lethal dose. Killing the economy is literally the game over, because climate change isn't about climate for climate's sake, but about climate not killing our economies and civilization through the pressure of increasing uninhabitability.
Fossile fuel is used for anything from concrete to cement to textites to pesticides to contact lenses, to ..... solar cells, and..... wind mills and medicin and thousands and thousands of other products.
Fossil fuels is the most valubale resource we have and all modern life is heavily depending on it. There is currently no realistic alternatives to most of this.
100% is actually trivial in the sense that we don't have surplus energy, so we can't turn off fossil fuels until we can turn them off.
What I should have said is this: economy is growing, and for now, it has to keep growing to even work. It's also dependent on fossil fuels and is using them up "just in time" - we don't have much in form of a buffer (or rather, the "buffer" is untapped sources, like ones exploited through fracking). As old sources get used up, new need to be tapped. We'll be able to stop tapping into new sources only when renewable/nuclear alternatives start growing faster than economy + drop in output of existing sources. Which might be somewhen in the future, but it's not now.
> The fact that you took it all the way to accusing me of trying to kill off most of the population is extremely rude.
I didn't accuse you of anything, you're projecting. I was only reminding everyone that the economy is not something you can just shut down and restart in a better form. Only gentle and incremental change is on the table.
> You are thinking in false extremes and stories, not numbers and graphs.
I can draw you the graphs if you like; the point is still that until we replace any given chunk of fossil fuel capacity, we have to keep that chunk running. Simple as that.
> willfully miss-frame the discussion. That is rather rude of you.
Sorry, that wasn't intentional. On the other hand, you've attacked me personally multiple times in your reply, which is that much ruder of you, and also against HN guidelines.
I didn't accuse you of anything, you're projecting. I was only reminding everyone that the economy is not something you can just shut down and restart in a better form. Only gentle and incremental change is on the table.
Should have. But we didn't. So we can either throw our hands up and give up, or continue and try to mitigate some of the damage.
Now GP has an important point here, forgetting which does a huge disservice to the climate problem mitigation efforts. Namely: our economy is dependent on fossil fuels right now, and until we transition to 100% renewables, it will be. You cannot just cut out fossil fuels, because that would collapse the economy, kill off most of the population, and forever stop any and all efforts at fixing the damage already done. And since our economy is growing, this means new fossil projects.
We absolutely still need to transition off the fossil fuels ASAP. But it's like with operating on a patient with very severe injuries: maintaining life support is more important than fixing the damage. Yes, you want to eventually get the patient off life support, but if you shut it down too early, you'll be trying to stitch up a cadaver.