Even with the goal to reduce emissions, without ready and capable replacements, rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is dangerous and lowers the world's standard of living.
This article is not wrong but it is incomplete. It has failed to engage with proven ecological problems associated specifically with continued burning of fossil fuels: greenhouse gas accumulation and air pollution. Burning fossil fuels is not innocently beneficial so costs and benefits have to be considered. There is no way the future is bright for Earth civilization without restructured fossil fuel use. That's just obvious. It seems insurmountable. It seems impossible. But I am betting my career that we will find better ways. As good ancestors, we ought to create a better inheritance. The time of fossil fuels has passed.
The only way forward is a sustainability transformation. But this transformation is a surgery. There will be pain. There will be bleeding. There will be risk of infection. But there is healing value in cutting out a cancer if we proceed with minds wide open. We are responsible for this surgery. We can only go forward if we do the work to phase out dependency on fossil fuels because sustainability is worth it.
Thanks for the reply, I agree that there problems with fossil fuel use and a more sustainable future is desirable. To your point, we will likely end up seeing pain one way or another as we move in that direction, but how much pain, who bears the brunt of it, and who gets to decide how much are important considerations.
The path function from here to a sustainable future has many tradeoffs with no perfect solution. A pro-human way with minimal suffering, no/minimal standard of living decrease, no food and energy crisis does not rapidly and at all costs eliminate fossil fuels in my opinion.
Totally agree. The good human life is funded by energy. And let's start with the axiom: A pro-human way with minimal suffering, no/minimal standard of living decrease, no food and energy crisis does not rapidly and at all costs eliminate fossil fuels. But fossil fuel use has to reduce in the energy mix.
We can then ask what do humans need energy for? Perhaps bin it broadly as transportation, production processes, and buildings. Let's benchmark as 2022: 100% fossil fuels for these bins. Then it makes sense to start with what happens if we could substitute fossil fuels with different technology. For example, suppose 2040: 50% fossil fuels means x amount of electric vehicles in transportation, y amount of renewable energy for all 3 bins, z amount of carbon removal to manage climate risks. Then the 2022 question would be how should we repurpose fossil fuel use to enable the technological innovation for said 2040 target.
All or nothing is a caricature that's easy to take down. A better question is how should we spend fossil fuels so we diversify humanity's energy diet humanely and maintain a habitable planet?
This article is not wrong but it is incomplete. It has failed to engage with proven ecological problems associated specifically with continued burning of fossil fuels: greenhouse gas accumulation and air pollution. Burning fossil fuels is not innocently beneficial so costs and benefits have to be considered. There is no way the future is bright for Earth civilization without restructured fossil fuel use. That's just obvious. It seems insurmountable. It seems impossible. But I am betting my career that we will find better ways. As good ancestors, we ought to create a better inheritance. The time of fossil fuels has passed.
The only way forward is a sustainability transformation. But this transformation is a surgery. There will be pain. There will be bleeding. There will be risk of infection. But there is healing value in cutting out a cancer if we proceed with minds wide open. We are responsible for this surgery. We can only go forward if we do the work to phase out dependency on fossil fuels because sustainability is worth it.
Thanks for the reply, I agree that there problems with fossil fuel use and a more sustainable future is desirable. To your point, we will likely end up seeing pain one way or another as we move in that direction, but how much pain, who bears the brunt of it, and who gets to decide how much are important considerations.
The path function from here to a sustainable future has many tradeoffs with no perfect solution. A pro-human way with minimal suffering, no/minimal standard of living decrease, no food and energy crisis does not rapidly and at all costs eliminate fossil fuels in my opinion.
Totally agree. The good human life is funded by energy. And let's start with the axiom: A pro-human way with minimal suffering, no/minimal standard of living decrease, no food and energy crisis does not rapidly and at all costs eliminate fossil fuels. But fossil fuel use has to reduce in the energy mix.
We can then ask what do humans need energy for? Perhaps bin it broadly as transportation, production processes, and buildings. Let's benchmark as 2022: 100% fossil fuels for these bins. Then it makes sense to start with what happens if we could substitute fossil fuels with different technology. For example, suppose 2040: 50% fossil fuels means x amount of electric vehicles in transportation, y amount of renewable energy for all 3 bins, z amount of carbon removal to manage climate risks. Then the 2022 question would be how should we repurpose fossil fuel use to enable the technological innovation for said 2040 target.
All or nothing is a caricature that's easy to take down. A better question is how should we spend fossil fuels so we diversify humanity's energy diet humanely and maintain a habitable planet?