Greta is at it..AGAIN

[ralfy]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

Been hearing this same song since the 70s

I'm not shocked or worried.

You should as global crises don't happen quickly. It's like a long emergency. Meanwhile, every point I say stands.

[GeekyBugle]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

Been hearing this same song since the 70s

I'm not shocked or worried.

You should as global crises don't happen quickly. It's like a long emergency. Meanwhile, every point I say stands.

Do you know why it's NOW called Climate Change? Because they predicted an Ice Age in 10-15 years... That didn't happen. Then they predicted no more ice in the poles in 10-15 years... That didn't happen either.

Your leaders are buying beach front properties, think about that comrade.

[ralfy]

The Club of Rome was saying this stuff in 1972 and they were completely wrong.  None of what they predicted came true.

"The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world's population to under 16%.

Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the reverse.

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular and elite thinking. Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.

Likewise, fears of over-population framed self-destructive policies, such as China's one-child policy and forced sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.

Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year – 25% of all deaths.

The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost a billion people. This has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.

The four decades since The Limits of Growth have shown that we need more of it, not less. An expansion of trade, with estimated benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually toward the end of the century, would do thousands of times more good than timid feel-good policies that result from fear-mongering. But that requires abandoning an anti-growth mentality and using our enormous potential to create a brighter future."

Limits of Panic, Bjorn Lomborg

This was 2013.  These predictions have only grown more wrong since then.

Both left and right were saying that until someone bothered to compare the predicted trends with real data across four decades. See Turner's paper for the U of Melbourne for details.

Also, the term "resourcefulness" is too general. It's actually oil used thanks to low energy density plus petrochemicals. The catch is that according to the IEA conventional production for that peaked back in 2005, which is why we've been resorting to unconventional production. Tapping resources like Manifa will cost around $200 a barrel.

Why didn't oil prices keep going up? Because the global economy can't afford them higher, which is why it would crash when they did. Meanwhile, capex has to keep rising because of diminishing returns, which is why energy returns have been dropping across decades. The result is that the global economy would crash, followed by oil prices, then prices would go up again, with mitigation involving creating more credit, which in turn leads to another crash, causing prices to go down, and so on. But the production cost never goes down.

[ralfy]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

Been hearing this same song since the 70s

I'm not shocked or worried.

You should as global crises don't happen quickly. It's like a long emergency. Meanwhile, every point I say stands.

Do you know why it's NOW called Climate Change? Because they predicted an Ice Age in 10-15 years... That didn't happen. Then they predicted no more ice in the poles in 10-15 years... That didn't happen either.

Your leaders are buying beach front properties, think about that comrade.

It's called climate change because it refers to weather anomalies caused by an increase in surface temperature anomaly.

They predicted an ice age because they argued that increased greenhouse emissions would block sunlight, thus leading to another cold spell. Later, they realized that they were wrong when world temps went up and the periodic cold spells disappeared, because apparently as the soot from air pollution blocked sunlight the gases caused heat that already reached the ground to be trapped. Look up the documentary on global dimming for details.

The NAS assessed dozens of studies and concluded that greenhouse gases have both a forcing and a feedback factor, and it's the former that's now kicking in. Deniers funded Berkeley Earth to come up with an independent study, and it ended up supporting the NAS assessment.

[ralfy]

Greetings!

Fuck the "Environmentalist Movement." As HeekyBugle said, they are all fucking Marxists and Globalist Tyrants.

The "movement" is just like GeekyBugle described. Anti-Christian, anti-Human, anti-Progress. These fucking animals want us to become some kind of quasi-primitive society, mostly poor, helpless, and enslaved, ruled over by a high-tech, uber wealthy Marxist Globalist elite.

When the hard times come, the environmentalist freaks will be eaten and cast into the fires.

If course, most everyone knows already that part of the reason why we are experiencing increased prices, increased hardship--is yes, because of the fucking environmentalists. It stems from politicians and policies implemented that are designed to please and obey the screaming environmentalists.

Fuck the industries involved. Fuck the families involved. Fuck the people's economy and happiness.

All must bow down to their evil fucking religion.

So, yeah. Crush them. DRILL BABY DRILL!

Too bad there are not special groups set up to target the environmentalists, and crush them. Every fucking one of them. Chase them down, terrorize them, bankrupt them, and crush them.

Let them live in the gutters of poverty and fear. Let them gulp and always look over their shoulders in dread. Let them scratch in the sewers, eating rats by campfire and candlelight.

That is what they deserve.

Politically, yeah, the opposition is enormous and well-funded. Just another part of resisting and defeating the fucking Marxist Globalists throughout the landscape. Local, Federal, everywhere.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As I pointed out earlier, the environmental movement won't succeed because too many people are poor and want to be richer, and rich people are counting on them to do so. Since half or more of mechanized agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and shipping involve fossil fuels, then increasing CO2 and pollution in general (including water, chemical, etc.) will take place, together with deforestation (mitigated by forest protection but countered by arable soil destruction), depletion of aquatic resources (dropping across four decades), etc. In short, not only will there be the effects of climate change but also environmental damage on a significant scale, plus diminishing returns.

The claims that diminishing returns are not true are complete nonsense, as clearly seen in mining: a century ago you could get high-grade ore with little effort, and significant quantities. Now, you need to go hundreds of meters deeper and move more earth using diesel-powered heavy equipment to get smaller quanities and of lower grade. The same thing's happening for oil, uranium, etc.

This isn't rocket science: you have a limited biosphere and gravity, and you're guaranteed increasing energy needed to get decreasing amounts of material. There's no counter-argument to that. You have "resourcefulness" but that's exactly what you do to try to reverse diminishing returns.

[ralfy]

This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

GeekyBugle, you specifically asked to name ONE prominent personality who didn't fit your parameters. I named Michael Shellenberger -- and then you came back that naming one person doesn't count because the mainstream isn't like that. You specifically asked about one person outside the mainstream -- you can't dismiss it because he's not like the rest.

The majority of any political movement these days are ignorant fearmongers -- hyped up on social media and outrage, and going on about how we're all doomed because the other side are pure evil.

As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps. As yosemitemike noted,

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

I agree. Since 1900, we've taken many steps to limit air pollution - like the 1963 Clear Air Act. And we can do more. It's not hypothetical - many countries can and have reduced pollution. One of the best ways is through nuclear power, but there are many options.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

Let's go with the lightest EV the Nissan Leaf: 3,516 lbs https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-much-does-an-electric-car-weigh $25,675

The closest in size is the Nissan Sentra 3,038 lbs $23,325

And that's for cars.

In trucks you're out of luck, to be able to carry ANY payload to any interesting distance you need a lot of batteries, which, since they weight the same full as empty the range is reduced, also the cargo is reduced and since you CAN'T charge the batteries in the same time you can fill the tank your time to deliver is increased. What about refrigerated goods?

Don't get me started on planes and cargo ships.

IF you're serious about reducing air pollution you MUST be 100% behind Nuclear.

If you're not an anti-human authoritarian murderer you MUST be in favor of fossil fuels for transport.

IF you're serious about the environment you CAN'T be for wind, solar or EVs because their manufacture still uses fossil fuels AND their waste is toxic AND they aren't reliable, AND the mining for minerals is environmental suicide.

ANY other question?

Every energy source has low returns and quantity. Even if we put every source online we won't be able to meet even the basic needs of the world population.

That means there's no way that we will stop using fossil fuels, and what's affecting fossil fuels will also affect what we need to replace them, like uranium.

One has to live in a fantasy to think that people are resourceful enough to innovate their way out of simple physics. That's not going to happen.

[Ratman_tf]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

Been hearing this same song since the 70s

I'm not shocked or worried.

You should as global crises don't happen quickly. It's like a long emergency. Meanwhile, every point I say stands.

Do you know why it's NOW called Climate Change? Because they predicted an Ice Age in 10-15 years... That didn't happen. Then they predicted no more ice in the poles in 10-15 years... That didn't happen either.

Your leaders are buying beach front properties, think about that comrade.

They call it Climate Justice now. Because it's not about the climate, it's about how climate is racist.

[yosemitemike]

Also, the term "resourcefulness" is too general. It's actually oil used thanks to low energy density plus petrochemicals. The catch is that according to the IEA conventional production for that peaked back in 2005, which is why we've been resorting to unconventional production. Tapping resources like Manifa will cost around $200 a barrel.

What this ignores is the simple fact that US proved crude oil reserves have gone up substantially from 21,575 million barrels in 2005 to 41,151 million barrels in 2021.  The difference is that frakking technology.  That crude oil was always there.  Now extracting it is economically viable.  That's an example of the resourcefulness he is talking about.  If we were really concerned about CO2 emissions, the best single thing we could do to reduce them would be to convince the CCP to adopt frakking on a wide scale and replace all of their coal-fired power plants with gas-fired ones.  Instead, the technology is being vehemently opposed by the same people who oppose nuclear power using the same sorts of half-truths, lies and alarmist rhetoric.

The Club of Rome and their various successors have been making doom and gloom alarmist predictions of this sort since the early 70s.  They have consistently been wildly wrong about them.  Why do these people have such a sterling track record of being wrong about everything?  It's because all of their arguments and predictions are built off of the basic premise that we are using up all the resources and running out.  This premise is demonstrably false so all of the predictions based on it are also false.  The Simon-Erlich wager proved that 34 years ago.  Your arguments are based on this same false premise. 

[Chris24601]

The core of the Club of Rome and associated's doom and gloom and desire to exterminate somewhere between 50-90% of humanity can be summed up as "Got mine! Pull up the ladder and fuck anyone trying reach for it!"

The idea that others might not have to look up to them fills them with wrath ("How DARE You!").

Any tool that might help others have better lives (i.e. abundant and affordable food and energy) relative to their privilege must be stopped.

They demand a return of Sumptuary Laws (you will eat bugs while we shall eat steak, you will be confined to 15 minute cities while they are free to jet around the world) to preserve their elite status.

They want to be gods and every reminder they aren't must be destroyed (they oppose any religion and reality itself for opposing their delusions).

The Environment is just their weapon and justification for these generational Narcissistic Sociopaths to try and get their serfs/slaves back.

[blackstone]

I am not 100% fully educated in the arguments when it comes to "climate change" but:

- when back in the 70s when the "experts" were perdicting a new ice age in the near future AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN

- when in the 90s & 2000s the "Experts" changed their tune and said it's "global warming" now, with Al "The Messiah" Gore blaring the "Earth has a fever" and Miami will be underwater in 20 years AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN

- where there is no real consensus among scientists when it comes climate change. just because someone says "a consensus among scientists" doesn't mean the consensus is correct. there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the causes of climate change. The dissenting voices are harshly shouted down or at least ignored.

- when I'm told in order to save the earth I need to limit my meat intake and eat more veggies, when it is been proven that it takes MORE land and water to produce vegetables and more harsh on the environment using modern agricultural methods.

- or being told we should EAT MORE BUGS for protein. NO, but FUCK NO!

and the "Elites" are still puttering around in gas-guzzling jets, or sitting in gigantic homes with 13 different air conditioners, eating Big Macs or Whoppers?

CONSIDER ME A SCEPTIC. I don't trust any of them. They have an agenda, and it's control of the population. It's not about money. Money is just a means to an end. It's about POWER AND CONTROL.

"He who controls a thing can destroy a thing".

That goes with people.

If anyone really thinks the Elites have the well-being of us poor unwashed masses at heart, you are lying to yourself.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL

[blackstone]

The core of the Club of Rome and associated's doom and gloom and desire to exterminate somewhere between 50-90% of humanity can be summed up as "Got mine! Pull up the ladder and fuck anyone trying reach for it!"

The idea that others might not have to look up to them fills them with wrath ("How DARE You!").

Any tool that might help others have better lives (i.e. abundant and affordable food and energy) relative to their privilege must be stopped.

They demand a return of Sumptuary Laws (you will eat bugs while we shall eat steak, you will be confined to 15 minute cities while they are free to jet around the world) to preserve their elite status.

They want to be gods and every reminder they aren't must be destroyed (they oppose any religion and reality itself for opposing their delusions).

The Environment is just their weapon and justification for these generational Narcissistic Sociopaths to try and get their serfs/slaves back.

[GeekyBugle]

This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

GeekyBugle, you specifically asked to name ONE prominent personality who didn't fit your parameters. I named Michael Shellenberger -- and then you came back that naming one person doesn't count because the mainstream isn't like that. You specifically asked about one person outside the mainstream -- you can't dismiss it because he's not like the rest.

The majority of any political movement these days are ignorant fearmongers -- hyped up on social media and outrage, and going on about how we're all doomed because the other side are pure evil.

As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps. As yosemitemike noted,

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

I agree. Since 1900, we've taken many steps to limit air pollution - like the 1963 Clear Air Act. And we can do more. It's not hypothetical - many countries can and have reduced pollution. One of the best ways is through nuclear power, but there are many options.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

Let's go with the lightest EV the Nissan Leaf: 3,516 lbs https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-much-does-an-electric-car-weigh $25,675

The closest in size is the Nissan Sentra 3,038 lbs $23,325

And that's for cars.

In trucks you're out of luck, to be able to carry ANY payload to any interesting distance you need a lot of batteries, which, since they weight the same full as empty the range is reduced, also the cargo is reduced and since you CAN'T charge the batteries in the same time you can fill the tank your time to deliver is increased. What about refrigerated goods?

Don't get me started on planes and cargo ships.

IF you're serious about reducing air pollution you MUST be 100% behind Nuclear.

If you're not an anti-human authoritarian murderer you MUST be in favor of fossil fuels for transport.

IF you're serious about the environment you CAN'T be for wind, solar or EVs because their manufacture still uses fossil fuels AND their waste is toxic AND they aren't reliable, AND the mining for minerals is environmental suicide.

ANY other question?

Every energy source has low returns and quantity. Even if we put every source online we won't be able to meet even the basic needs of the world population.

That means there's no way that we will stop using fossil fuels, and what's affecting fossil fuels will also affect what we need to replace them, like uranium.

One has to live in a fantasy to think that people are resourceful enough to innovate their way out of simple physics. That's not going to happen.

So the "Final Solution" is to reduce the human population, I agree Fritz, you first.

(You're either scientifically illiterate/idiot or so ideologically possesed you lie by reflex, good bye and have a good life.

[jhkim]

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

No country is 100% off fossil fuels, but many countries that use *less* fossil fuels have overall more reliable, cheaper, and cleaner power. France and Sweden generate less than 20% of their energy from fossil fuels, and their energy is cheaper than average in Western Europe - thanks in part to early investment in nuclear power. (Germany and Denmark which have no nuclear are doing much worse.)

In particular, about the "cleaner" part... Fossil fuels are considered cleaner only because air pollution is given a free pass, even though it has clearly documented health effects, causing 5 million or so early deaths every year worldwide. If there was even the slightest health effect from a nuclear accident, a city would be shut down and evacuated. But we've been conditioned to think that air pollution is acceptable because it's just "normal". As Brad put it "Breathing in diesel exhaust will kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning a billion times sooner than anything else in there." -- as if that is some sort of reassurance that really diesel is safe.

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

For what it's worth, my stepson is driving an eGolf that he got from his father. I think in your charging comment, you're referring to the record-heat week back in August 2022 when California asked everyone to reduce electricity use. Is that right? California does have below-average electricity reliability, but it's #35 out of 50. The three lowest are Oregon, Texas, and Louisiana.

https://generatordecision.com/states-with-the-most-least-reliable-power-grids/

I wouldn't dismiss all problems with EVs, but you're claiming that they don't even exist as an alternative.

You said before that there are no easy answers. I agree about that. EVs exist and are currently being used as an alternative to gasoline cars. Gasoline cars have greater range and weigh less, but they also spit out harmful pollutants into the air that are proven to damage lungs and reduce lifespan. There isn't a simple metric for how these trade off with each other.

[GeekyBugle]

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

No country is 100% off fossil fuels, but many countries that use *less* fossil fuels have overall more reliable, cheaper, and cleaner power. France and Sweden generate less than 20% of their energy from fossil fuels, and their energy is cheaper than average in Western Europe - thanks in part to early investment in nuclear power. (Germany and Denmark which have no nuclear are doing much worse.)

In particular, about the "cleaner" part... Fossil fuels are considered cleaner only because air pollution is given a free pass, even though it has clearly documented health effects, causing 5 million or so early deaths every year worldwide. If there was even the slightest health effect from a nuclear accident, a city would be shut down and evacuated. But we've been conditioned to think that air pollution is acceptable because it's just "normal". As Brad put it "Breathing in diesel exhaust will kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning a billion times sooner than anything else in there." -- as if that is some sort of reassurance that really diesel is safe.

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

For what it's worth, my stepson is driving an eGolf that he got from his father. I think in your charging comment, you're referring to the record-heat week back in August 2022 when California asked everyone to reduce electricity use. Is that right? California does have below-average electricity reliability, but it's #35 out of 50. The three lowest are Oregon, Texas, and Louisiana.

https://generatordecision.com/states-with-the-most-least-reliable-power-grids/

I wouldn't dismiss all problems with EVs, but you're claiming that they don't even exist as an alternative.

You said before that there are no easy answers. I agree about that. EVs exist and are currently being used as an alternative to gasoline cars. Gasoline cars have greater range and weigh less, but they also spit out harmful pollutants into the air that are proven to damage lungs and reduce lifespan. There isn't a simple metric for how these trade off with each other.

My bad, when I said safer, reliable and cleaner I was talking about Nuclear, just noticed I ommited writting the word.

The Eurupean countries that closed their Nuclear plants to please the Environmentalists are doing worse? Well I'm shocked!

EVs don't "spit out harmful pollutants into the air" while you're driving them, that's true, all the harmful pollutants are produced while manufacturing them and producing the energy to charge them plus all the pollution produced when those batteries are no longer usable.

They are being used as an alternative BECAUSE the governments are both punishing the manufacture/use of ICE vehicles while subsidizing the manufacture/use of EVs, all of that while turning a blind eye to all the environmental damage done for the manufacture and the pollution created during it's life and after for the dispossal of the batteries.

IF you think that's a good exchange it's only because you're not seeing the smoke, but as you know air pollution doesn't stay over China or India, and destroying the environment to mine for the minerals for the batteries isn't a worthy trade-off either IMHO. Maybe that pollution is acceptable to you for some reason.

For the Nth time, if you want to reduce/eliminate the use of fossil fuels in energy generation you have very few REAL alternatives, with Nuclear at the top with some hydro, geo-termal and maybe marine to supplement where possible. IF you want to reduce/eliminate the use of fossil fuels for transport I can see only ONE real option, Hydrogen, higher energy density than fossil fuels, but it's a bomb rolling down your street or parked in your garage, it needs to become cheaper to produce and safer to transport/use before we can think about switching to it. It's also way cleaner than fossil fuels BTW. Plus, if we managed to create an efficient enough way to combine it with oxygen while producing electricity you could have your precious electric motors everywhere while getting water vapor from the exahust.

Those are all facts, you might not like them but you have no scientific way to argue against me.

[GeekyBugle]

Bill Gates: The Net Zero transition will require the energy grid "to be about three times bigger than it is today".

"Consumers can help us by stretching to buy an electric car, or an electric heat pump, or food that's made a low emissions way."

"The rich countries owe it to the world not only to reduce their emissions, but to drive down the cost of these green products."

https://archive.is/l8M85