Forget global warming. Of course it will not be stopped. All fossil fuels will be burnt till full exhaustion of reserves, until the remainder is completely uneconomical to extract. But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament.

As climate risk increases demand for renewables, we may actually see a decline in price for fossil fuels, at least for a time, resulting in prolonged bimodal consumption.

I think we've been in this artificially low fossil fuel price environment since the beginning though: the externalities aren't priced in.

It's more or less a tautology that extraction will continue until it isn't worth doing.

The thing is, abundant cheap energy will make it less and less worth doing.

> Of course it will not be stopped

One way or another, it will definitely be stopped. At some point, civilization collapse would end the burning of fossil fuels at scale. The question is at what point it will stop and whether any tipping points are passed which accelerate the process out of control.

It's far from obvious that all efforts to limit carbon emissions will fail and to say otherwise is deeply cynical. Measures are being taken already. They are not enough to reach the claimed goals and the claimed goals will probably not be reached, but that's very different from saying warming will not be stopped at all, let alone "of course". More measures will follow once the adverse effects get worse in industrialized countries (e.g. deaths and economic damage due to changing climate and weather events).

Expanding renewable energy is exactly what will make the fossil fuels uneconomical to extract.

I won't happen by magic. Even with their ever increasing scarcity, as long as no alternative exists, they will be economical.

> But then the nations that were the last to start switching will find their economies too inefficient and expensive to run with the fossil fuels while everyone else is using much cheaper renewables, and will probably no longer have money for the switch, ending up in a major predicament.

If all the fossil fuel is burned, we will probably never reach that point ; society breakdown will happen sooner.

Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?

We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.

Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.

If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.

It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak.

If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.

I don't see how reducing consumption is a realistic goal considering the economic and political fallout from pursuing such reduction. What political parties would be suicidal enough to put such policies into place? When would a majority of the voting public support such goals in most countries, particularly the biggest polluters? Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? We got to see how much people were willing to put up with during the pandemic, and the answer is not that much reduction for very long, at least not the kind that would seriously curb emissions.

> Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs?

See, that's the difference between an organized society planning this change and just letting it happen.