For instance, only 4% of global oil output is used in plastics. The vast majority is used in transportation and heating. Plastics, unlike transportation fuels, can also be recycled.
It's not oil or no oil. It's putting in place the systems and policies to responsibly end our reliance on oil and coal before we cause even more damage to our climate.
IPCC made a report on what that would entail stating basically that even with an overnight abolishment it cannot be reached. But that if we assume it feasible to use afforestation and other techniques to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in the future we might have chance to reach that target for 2100 given we stop using fossil fuels by 2030.
Given the scale of the transition necessary, overnight or 11-years is more or less the same time frame
Edit: Great TED-talk on the scale of what’s needed https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o
First, that attitude makes you, your family, and your friends more susceptible to propaganda from pro-fossil fuel interests. You're more apt to believe crazy stuff like we'd have to stop using plastic or that nuclear would have to also go away. You're more apt to doubt the science behind climate change. You're more apt to be mislead on the economics or feasibility of renewables.
Second, that attitude makes you think we're not in a rush, so we can afford to wait until things are figured out more. It makes you think that we have to figure out storage for wind and solar and airplanes, even though we don't have to worry about that until we reach much higher levels of penetration than we currently have (and we're already making good progress nonetheless). It makes you think that we'd fall into chaos if we use less natural gas and oil, even though it's going to be a gradual transition and will be replaced with equal or better alternatives.
Unfortunately, because of previous neutral attitudes like yours, we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate change are starting to happen (how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires? etc.). Nature doesn't give a fuck. It's too late to be neutral anymore.
So from one Texas energy worker to another, I beg you to stop being neutral. Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise to have a substantial impact fighting climate change. Remaining neutral when you work in energy is just making everyone else's lives worse.
Graph: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3...
Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
News: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo...
This is the carbon emission reduction curve we have to hit if we want to hit our Paris Agreement targets. That's a pretty steep drop off if you ask me, and certainly falls into the category of a "race for your lives".
Do you disagree? Please provide sources that we aren't in such a rush to curtail fossil emissions (because there's mountains of science saying we are).
> It gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist.
How can I be paranoid if the science backs me up? However, I do think being an alarmist is appropriate for the situation. If that graph isn't a mash-the-big-red-button moment, I don't know what would be.
But, you may say, a lot of people will die from climate change. (And a lot definitely die from pollution.) A lot die from malaria, too, but we don't have a "race for our lives" on that one. Cynically, most people don't consider a bunch of other people dying as a "race for our lives".
(We did more or less have a "race for our lives" on AIDS, though. It seems that we start to care when it's hitting closer to home, and we think that it could be us. That's the problem with your argument. You haven't shown people enough evidence that they think it will be them dying, so they don't think it's "a race for our lives".)
Going above Paris gets into the "there be dragons" realm of human survival. The Pentagon is predicting mass migrations, wars, famine, and economic implosion[1]. I feel like that certainly constitutes "race for our lives" level of rhetoric.
Usually, when someone balks at strong rhetoric on climate change they are (1) unaware of the scale and severity of the problem or (2) don't see those affected as within their "our" definition (e.g. it will happen to other people, not my people). The former is slowly being solved through increased education and awareness, the later will likely always be present due to human tribalism and racism.
As far as the malaria theory, it's a very different strategy when you are actively causing the problem you are trying to solve. It's as if we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot, then some of us say we should stop, then you say why are you so focused on the foot-shooting vs cancer killing us. One is an immediately addressable problem caused by ourselves, one is a natural threat that is not under our direct and immediate control (thus takes much longer to understand and solve).
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-w...
If it's a thousand (or maybe even a million), we're already there just with air pollution. Forget CO2, particulates are already that level of catastrophe.
For just CO2 or global warming, there are projections (or, less charitably, guesses) about how much CO2 will lead to how much warming, which will lead to how many deaths. Pick your level of what constitutes a catastrophe to you, and then pick which projections you find most believable. For actual answers rather than projections, we'll have to wait until after it happens (at which point it's a bit late to try to do anything about it).
But my point was, there's different levels that are "catastrophic", depending on your definition of catastrophe. There is no one answer to the question.
Knufen minimized diafygi's position (acting extreme, paranoid alarmist). So now I want to know what Knufen considers worth his/her concern.
But if you insist on getting Knufen's definition of catastrophe, you should also get diafygi's, since diafygi posted the claim that we're arguing about in this sub-thread.
diafygi wrote:
"we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate change are starting to happen"
"Catastrophe" is a suboptimal word choice.
What would you suggest?
Minor inconvenience, regrettable circumstances, potential nuisance, that gosh darn weather? Other?
--
SME diafygi, who has skin in the game, who completely rearranged his life to match his beliefs, posted very personal views. For his troubles, Knufen mocked him, thereby minimizing the circumstances, thereby proving diafygi's larger point.
The world's burning. And you're fussing over adjectives. More distraction. Again, proving diafygi's larger point.
Please. Continue.
Do you refuse to fly if you are "against fossil fuels"? What makes you against fossil fuels vs being neutral if you have a stance where you believe externalities should be taxed but that outright bans are too destructive?
I consider pro carbon-tax to be a neutral position. I consider "anti fossil fuels" a position of wanting to ban it regardless of externalities being priced in.
>First, that attitude makes you, your family, and your friends more susceptible to propaganda from pro-fossil fuel interests.
No, being incapable of critical thought makes you susceptible to propaganda.
> Do you refuse to fly if you are "against fossil fuels"?
This is a false equivalence. Being an fossil consumer is very very different from directly working in the fossil industry. Consumers will use whatever is most convenient or available. It's up to the industry to come up with feasible alternatives, and air travel will be some of the last fossil usage to transition. You picked the hardest end of the scale to setup a straw man. Why not ask "Do you ask your utility if there's a 100% clean energy option?" That's on the lower end of the energy transition difficulty curve for consumers, but it's still not relevant to the argument I was making (working in the old energy industry).
> What makes you against fossil fuels vs being neutral if you have a stance where you believe externalities should be taxed but that outright bans are too destructive? I consider pro carbon-tax to be a neutral position. I consider "anti fossil fuels" a position of wanting to ban it regardless of externalities being priced in.
It seems you and I have wildly different opinions about what constitutes neutral vs anti, and I worry that your definition is mostly informed by pro-fossil interests. Anti-fossil people aren't zealots or a cult. I'm only anti-fossil because of the reason you stated for being neutral: externalities are not being priced in. If they were, I wouldn't be anti-fossil.
Millions of other workers in clean energy and climate science have the same attitude as me. We're only in this fight because fossil fuels are killing people, so we're stepping up to help stop that. If fossil fuels weren't so destructive (e.g. carbon taxes offset the damages), we could all go do something else.
> No, being incapable of critical thought makes you susceptible to propaganda.
I seems like this is another argument assuming anti-fossil people are zealots incapable of critical thought. Having a position on a topic does not mean you have stopped thinking critically. Often, it means you have already thought critically and have decided on your opinion, and that you simply haven't come across a convincing enough argument to move you away from your current position.
I'm anti-fossil because I've reached the conclusion that fossil fuels are becoming more and more destructive for society, so we should make strides to curtail their usage. There's totally a chance that something could come along to alter my conclusion, but it hasn't happened yet.
This resonates with me. I was an activist for ~10 years (for a different issue). Me and every activist I met stepped up because of the need (vs innate interest). Personally, I would have rather been doing pretty much anything else.
Thank you for stepping up.
Because the status quo is that fossil fuels are allowed without the externalities being taxed. A position that moves towards less fossil fuel use is anti-fossil fuel, although less so than one that desires an outright ban.
how many Americans died in Puerto Rico?
The existence of category 4/5 hurricanes in 1900 can't really be used to deny global warming if that's what you're after.
Anecdotal weather-related disasters aren't an argument for climate change, let alone hydrocarbon-based energy generation having a negative net effect on humanity.
can pretty much expect something completely biased coming, but will wait and see.
> "being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as being pro fossil fuels"
Yup, here is you sure are about to spout off nothing but propaganda now.
> "nuclear would have to also go away"
liberals hate nuclear. In fact one of the primary purposes of the Simpsons was to raise awareness (propaganda) about how bad nuclear is.
> "we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate "
no we are not. 8.2 feet by the end of 2100 is it? the end of the ice age saw sea levels rise almost a thousand feet. Australia use to be connected to Papua New Guinea. its not ideal, but its not a race for our lives nightmare. I have pretty bad nightmares. The vast majority of all human beings will have died of old age by then. Open google maps, look outside your city limits. Earth is alive. This is not ideal, but saying things like race for our lives nightmare only makes it hard to take you seriously.
> "how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires?"
California has ALWAYS HAD WILDFIRES. Red Wood trees have EVOLVED to only be able to reproduce with them - so they kinda probably happened. a lot. In fact, the west is so dry, its the only place on the planet cactus evolved. its that dry. it always has been that dry.
> "It's too late to be neutral anymore."
Again alarmest attitude. but not surprised coming from someone who's job depends upon it.
> "Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise"
Then maybe you should respect that they have opinions founded in fact, instead of assuming they must be crazy-brainwashed for not believing what you believe.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. I remember people complaining about 2 massive cooling towers in the centre of Sheffield being torn down.
I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly.
It depends on the density. Once they clutter everything visible below 100 ft, it's pretty hard to see beauty: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/2128...
I did a google image search for that location and the other images didn't seem so bad (to me).
Is the uglyness an inherent feature of the scale. Or a feature of poor design?
Some appear to have white nacelles and black towers.
I volunteered at Audubon for years. Love both birds and windmills.