Climate change and human responsibility

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We obviously can't phase it out now - but the idea we can't figure out a way to greatly reduce fossil fuel use seems unlikely. We at one point were using coal to power everything and we've moved away from that a lot. We'll figure out a way to reduce oil usage as well.

No one making serious decisions is saying cut the fossil fuels off tomorrow so we can all go back to living in squalor.

It's just not true, what he is saying. First of all- literally no energy source in human history (none) has been "phased out" entirely. It doesn't happen. To me, this just screams in the face of not knowing what oil and gas is used for (in their entirety). So to say that in the next 30 years we'll just phased out the one thing that literally launched human civilization to where it is over the last 200 years is delusional. I don't think I should need to provide "studies" regarding why this would be a horrendous idea as one would think it is self-explanatory and the fact I am even typing this sentence just goes to show the level of energy ignorance going on in the world today. Like, there's a reason 3rd world countries are all scratching and clawing to USE MORE fossil fuels, vitalize their industries and societies and obtain 'western' standards of living. Starvation, shelter, transportation, like- literally almost everything in modern society- is a function of fossil fuels. So what people like Street Pharma are saying is no we have to go back to 3rd world standards of living.

Which leads me to; where are you getting this data that says that "billions" of people are going to die from climate change? Which studies and reports and models show this? Call me incredibly skeptical of that number (because it won't be true). And I don't deny it will be horrible and many, many people will die, etc.- but this is the point. You don't know how many people will die of climate change. I don't know how many people will die from ceasing the use of fossil fuels (but this will be equally if not worse IMO), yet can we not agree that we don't want society to go back to third world standards of living? And if we agree on this point, it fundamentally means we will not be "phasing out" fossil fuel use, which is- honestly and I mean no offense with this- and only use this term to demonstrate how extreme the position is- an idiotic notion.

But you have piqued my interest and I'll see if I can find anything specific on consequences to the ceasing of using fossil fuels. I'm not sure how people in Africa will eat for starters, but sure I'll take a look.

[Muta]

One thing that I really like that the City of Calgary has done in the last couple years, is replace lots of their maintained green spaces (ie. grass) with natural vegetation - medians, roadside parks, etc. This helps to reduce water usage, and cuts down on energy usage during maintenance as well. And best of all, the natural vegetation looks just as nice!

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The issue is that phase out of fossil fuels in 30 years is a requirement. If we don't, billions of lives are at stake [I]forever[I], and you can't undo the damage.

Yeah, sorry that's just not going to happen in any realistic scenario (atleast not one without a massive humanitarian crisis). Not in the West, where we are too used to the comforts and stability that fossil fuels give us, and especially not in the East and Global South, where many developing nations are still emerging out of poverty and are cranking up their energy needs as they grow and try to attain our standard of living. Those countries will do what allows them to raise their standard of living in as efficient/affordable way as possible, not what some talking head in the West tells them to do.

The reality is that even if renewables grow, fossil fuels are not going away, and they will always be part of the mix. We as a society don't really reduce our use of energy sources, we tend to just add more to the pile. Look at this chart below...even though our coal % is less than it used to be, and everyone considers it a fuel of yesteryear, we actually use much more of it today than we did 50 years ago. The same will happen to Oil and Gas, as the East/South rise in quality of life will demand it.

[14Roman14]

Originally Posted by Muta

One thing that I really like that the City of Calgary has done in the last couple years, is replace lots of their maintained green spaces (ie. grass) with natural vegetation - medians, roadside parks, etc. This helps to reduce water usage, and cuts down on energy usage during maintenance as well. And best of all, the natural vegetation looks just as nice!

I agree Muta

I know that likely is shocking after other conversations we’ve had.

Calgary has done a great job of creating a lot of green areas. Makes a huge difference to have lots of grass and trees to break up the constant View of concrete and pavement.

It is way more pleasant to move around in than say Edmonton because of that effort. Not saying Calgary is perfect and an Edmonton has zero green, but it is very noticeable in the southern city.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, sorry that's just not going to happen in any realistic scenario (atleast not one without a massive humanitarian crisis). Not in the West, where we are too used to the comforts and stability that fossil fuels give us, and especially not in the East and Global South, where many developing nations are still emerging out of poverty and are cranking up their energy needs as they grow and try to attain our standard of living. Those countries will do what allows them to raise their standard of living in as efficient/affordable way as possible, not what some talking head in the West tells them to do.

The reality is that even if renewables grow, fossil fuels are not going away, and they will always be part of the mix. We as a society don't really reduce our use of energy sources, we tend to just add more to the pile. Look at this chart below...even though our coal % is less than it used to be, and everyone considers it a fuel of yesteryear, we actually use much more of it today than we did 50 years ago. The same will happen to Oil and Gas, as the East/South rise in quality of life will demand it.

I agree with the general point - we need the developed world to get off of oil/coal as much as possible because the Africias and South Asias of the world are probably going to use it a ton of it while they develop.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, sorry that's just not going to happen in any realistic scenario (atleast not one without a massive humanitarian crisis). Not in the West, where we are too used to the comforts and stability that fossil fuels give us, and especially not in the East and Global South, where many developing nations are still emerging out of poverty and are cranking up their energy needs as they grow and try to attain our standard of living. Those countries will do what allows them to raise their standard of living in as efficient/affordable way as possible, not what some talking head in the West tells them to do.

The reality is that even if renewables grow, fossil fuels are not going away, and they will always be part of the mix. We as a society don't really reduce our use of energy sources, we tend to just add more to the pile. Look at this chart below...even though our coal % is less than it used to be, and everyone considers it a fuel of yesteryear, we actually use much more of it today than we did 50 years ago. The same will happen to Oil and Gas, as the East/South rise in quality of life will demand it.

I think you are massively underestimating human ingenuity. There's good strides being made already and I'm quite optimistic we can do it. I really don't think people here are grasping the humanitarian costs of the climate change that's already baked in, nor the absolute devastating effects of >2°. Potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of refugees who cannot live where they were. That alone is bigger than phasing out fossil fuels over 30 years

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you are massively underestimating human ingenuity. There's good strides being made already and I'm quite optimistic we can do it. I really don't think people here are grasping the humanitarian costs of the climate change that's already baked in, nor the absolute devastating effects of >2°. Potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of refugees who cannot live where they were. That alone is bigger than phasing out fossil fuels over 30 years

I think you may be massively underestimating human entitlement. I don't really see a way, given our population, that ingenuity can really get us to where you think we need to be. Too man people wanting(fairly) a good quality of life, which chase too few resources and capacity.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you are massively underestimating human ingenuity. There's good strides being made already and I'm quite optimistic we can do it. I really don't think people here are grasping the humanitarian costs of the climate change that's already baked in, nor the absolute devastating effects of >2°. Potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of refugees who cannot live where they were. That alone is bigger than phasing out fossil fuels over 30 years

And you are massively underestimating how intricately woven into the fabric of modern society fossil fuels are.

To your last sentence, I don’t think it is actually. What you are asking for is not “baked in” reality. There’s lots to talk about here too. If you sit and think about it for awhile, and how everything you know about how the world works, think about stripping fossil fuels from the equation and let us know how the world works without them. I’ll give you an example. Food supplies are transported all over the world. How do you propose we transport food without fossil fuels?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

One thing that I really like that the City of Calgary has done in the last couple years, is replace lots of their maintained green spaces (ie. grass) with natural vegetation - medians, roadside parks, etc. This helps to reduce water usage, and cuts down on energy usage during maintenance as well. And best of all, the natural vegetation looks just as nice!

Did the city ever water anything that isn't a sports field?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you are massively underestimating human ingenuity. There's good strides being made already and I'm quite optimistic we can do it. I really don't think people here are grasping the humanitarian costs of the climate change that's already baked in, nor the absolute devastating effects of >2°. Potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of refugees who cannot live where they were. That alone is bigger than phasing out fossil fuels over 30 years

I find it odd that you are optimistic that "human ingenuity" can in 30 years transition us away from the core material sources that our entire modern societies are build on, but that if we don't, we somehow don't have the same human ingenuity to mitigate and adapt the effects of climate change. For thousands of years, we as humans have both adapted when our situations and environments change, and have looked to control our environment through technology. We've been migrating and reshuffling for our entire existence. We've built civilizations in deserts. We've reclaimed land from the ocean. We've harnessed the power of massive rivers, as well as tiny atoms. Are we suddenly going to lose our ability to think and adapt if the temperature rises 2 degrees?

The reality is that we'll need to do plenty both... there's going have to do both technological progress, as well as adaptability and mitigation. Having said that, I don't think you maybe understand how much "human ingenuity" is underwritten by fossil fuels. All those robots and microchips and plastics and solar cells and wind turbines...all require fossil fuels to build them and maintain them. Nothing on this planet happens without something being grown or dug up from the ground. Our entire existence relies on cultivating our planet in some fashion.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And you are massively underestimating how intricately woven into the fabric of modern society fossil fuels are.



To your last sentence, I don’t think it is actually. What you are asking for is not “baked in” reality. There’s lots to talk about here too. If you sit and think about it for awhile, and how everything you know about how the world works, think about stripping fossil fuels from the equation and let us know how the world works without them. I’ll give you an example. Food supplies are transported all over the world. How do you propose we transport food without fossil fuels?

I don't mean this as a glib retort, but don't you think that's exactly what people working on this are doing? That they're just ignoring things like food transportation? This isn't "take out fossil fuels with no replacement". Literally zero credible people are advocating for that. It's a total strawman

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't mean this as a glib retort, but don't you think that's exactly what people working on this are doing? That they're just ignoring things like food transportation? This isn't "take out fossil fuels with no replacement". Literally zero credible people are advocating for that. It's a total strawman

It's great that top men are on the case, but the problem is trying to actively rid of something that is vital and proven, before having a viable and scalable (the scale part is hugely important) replacement.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't mean this as a glib retort, but don't you think that's exactly what people working on this are doing? That they're just ignoring things like food transportation? This isn't "take out fossil fuels with no replacement". Literally zero credible people are advocating for that. It's a total strawman

It is not a strawman at all. There are about 3 million things fossil fuels are used for and that is exactly the point you seem unable (actually, unwilling) to grasp here. You have no clue the literal millions of products and uses fossil fuels are involved with, and that's not meant to be an insult it's just true and is the problem- same for millions of other people. The adage "careful what you wish for" couldn't ever be more glaring than this precise example. Abandoning fossil fuels in 30 years will be a literal nightmare, for, as you put it, billions of people around the world.

It's also not anymore of a strawman than arm wavey "people are working on it" declarations. Who? Where? What do you mean? You think people are working on transporting food to sub-saharan Africa because fossil fuels are going to be zero in 30 years??? Really?????

We can go back to wooden boats I guess? Then we'd be cutting down trees though... also food will take about 50x longer to get there.. also... also... also... also...

you are massively underestimating fossil fuel's role in human development to this point. What's a word grander than massively? You're doing that adjective underestimating. I actually think you're purposefully trying to not think about it, because it is scary.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It's great that top men are on the case, but the problem is trying to actively rid of something that is vital and proven, before having a viable and scalable (the scale part is hugely important) replacement.

Who is trying to do this?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It is not a strawman at all. There are about 3 million things fossil fuels are used for and that is exactly the point you seem unable (actually, unwilling) to grasp here. You have no clue the literal millions of products and uses fossil fuels are involved with, and that's not meant to be an insult it's just true and is the problem- same for millions of other people. The adage "careful what you wish for" couldn't ever be more glaring than this precise example. Abandoning fossil fuels in 30 years will be a literal nightmare, for, as you put it, billions of people around the world.

It's also not anymore of a strawman than arm wavey "people are working on it" declarations. Who? Where? What do you mean? You think people are working on transporting food to sub-saharan Africa because fossil fuels are going to be zero in 30 years??? Really?????

We can go back to wooden boats I guess? Then we'd be cutting down trees though... also food will take about 50x longer to get there.. also... also... also... also...

you are massively underestimating fossil fuel's role in human development to this point. What's a word grander than massively? You're doing that adjective underestimating. I actually think you're purposefully trying to not think about it, because it is scary.

The fossil fuels are going to be zero part of this aside - things are being worked on. Cargo ships had to have a big reduction in sulfur in their fuel a few years back to reduce emissions. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...phur-2020.aspx

More money is being spent on investments in solar and wind power in 2022 than in oil and gas extraction according to this research company - https://e360.yale.edu/digest/clean-e...ransition-2022

[Mathgod]

The deification of fossil fuels in this thread is extremely cringe.

Humans needed an energy source to do things they wanted to do. They used fossil fuels because there was nothing better at the time. Simple as that. Once something better comes along, it should be used instead of the worse thing that was used previously.

Indeed, there should be a process of phasing out fossil fuels, and it needs to happen relatively quickly.

Why aren't we further along in this process than we currently are, stems from decades of climate change denial funded by big oil. There are all kinds of green technologies being worked on atm; it's not hard to find out what these are. It would be foolish to suggest that we wouldn't have been at the stage of innovation we are at now, much sooner, if not for the obnoxious lies spread by big oil.

As for the "going back to 3rd world conditions" argument, that is an absurd false dichotomy. Asking people to curb their greed is not the same as "knocking them back to the stone age".

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Muta

One thing that I really like that the City of Calgary has done in the last couple years, is replace lots of their maintained green spaces (ie. grass) with natural vegetation - medians, roadside parks, etc. This helps to reduce water usage, and cuts down on energy usage during maintenance as well. And best of all, the natural vegetation looks just as nice!

I was doing some tree planting with Calgary Climate Hub a few weeks ago and it was interesting to hear people from the city talk about the goal of increasing they city's tree canopy from 8% to 16% by 2060, which means basically doubling the density of tree canopy that exists in the city right now. In terms of the actual number of trees that doesn't seem that daunting, until you consider that the city already needs to plant nearly 4000 trees a year just to maintain current coverage, plus every new neighbourhood basically starts at near 0% coverage. And that's not accounting for epic spring/fall snowstorms. The tree coverage in the city right now is still below pre-2014 level when that big September storm wiped out a lot of trees. It's a great goal but it was sobering to think about just how many trees need to be planted for that.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What am I destroying? I'm not using ocean water to water my lawn.

There's a reason why California, Nevada, and Arizona are getting rid of lawns. There's a reason why Calgary brought in water meters many years ago. Drinking water is not an infinite resource, as much as we'd like to think that it is.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We at one point were using coal to power everything and we've moved away from that a lot. We'll figure out a way to reduce oil usage as well.

No one making serious decisions is saying cut the fossil fuels off tomorrow so we can all go back to living in squalor.

I think coal usage has actually increased due to green policies and energy transition. LNG and natural gas has been blocked, so economies have shifted to coal. And where renewables have been built, coal has been used to backstop the grid.

On the second bolded, the people in charge aren't saying that but they are inadvertently implementing policies which will achieve exactly that.

[Mr.Coffee]

Coal is used for steel.

Steel is used in windmills, solar panels, etc.

The reality that people like Mathgod, who’s post is not even worth replying to, fail to understand is that the issue comes down to resources and overpopulation. It doesn’t matter the mode. It’s good to work towards the goals and CO2 reduction strategies to lessen the impact but to think the whole world order and human civilization is just blustering ahead with use of fossil fuels because “big oil” has just hoodwinked everyone is insane. It literally sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person.