But instead of coming up with useless analogies about cocaine and falling back on studies you didn't even reference, please respond to each of my points instead of talking past me.
Maybe start with the fact that there are no replacements ready for coal other than nat. gas.
I'm all for building up nuclear energy and even battery banks. But currently nothing is available other than nat. gas to take the load that coal has produced.
Soo... the best way to reduce emissions is to use nat. gas until a solution is built up and ready. (cough, nuclear, cough)
Renewables will most likely never be able to handle the peak load, you need a baseline source, that's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy thanks to their densities.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracki...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012022/fracking-air-pol...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/
Studies you don't like are fake right ?
> I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking.
Is that supposed to make you sound more truth-worthy ?
Ditching a fossil fuel to another fossil fuel is just perpetuating the problem, it's not solving anything. It's like going from a meth addiction to a cocaine addition, sure cocaine isn't as bad, you'll still be absolutely fucked up in a decade though