weatheriscool wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:24 pm
caltrek wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 1:02 pm
United Nations Chief: Fossil Fuel Companies “Have Humanity by the Throat”
by Fiona Harvey
June 18, 2022
Introduction:
...
Read more here:
https://www.motherjones.com/environmen ... e-throat/
caltrek: The "news" here is that this analysis is coming from the U.N. Secretary General as the facts he has outlined have been known by many of us for decades now.
The problem is fossil fuels are the humane source of energy at this point of history. The vast majority of humanity that isn't rich needs cheap food and depends on prices being low or standards of living take a dive. Destroying fossil fuels as the UN and the green movement wants to do could end up killing a lot of people and causing a great deal of pain and suffering. Think about humanity my friend. Think about solutions to help move us away from fossil fuels without causing unimaginable pain on us little people.
The democrats need to come up with a plan that doesn't just focus on green energy and moving away form fossil fuels as the be all and end all. They need to consider humanity and the price of goods with the effects it has on the population. Their is a price to be paid at election day for not doing this and I assure you that forgetting this will be painful on the democrats.
I think we should do this over 50 years instead of 10. The idea of ending fossil fuels by 2030-2035 is insane. If you're going to do it you should lead with government subsidies that lower the prices of electric cars below that of fossil fuels. You should accept that we need nuclear, hydro and great investments into fusion. I support wind and solar but they're not going to transform our society into what you and your movement wants. We need to be realistic.
I support government and would like to see policies that favor the poor in the plan to transform our society.
What is "humane" about an energy source that cause problems related to global climate change?
Doesn't the Green movement have as a central tenant replacing fossil fuels with fuels that are both renewable and cheaper than fossil fuels?
We don't have fifty years. "Go slow we need to ease into things" type of arguments are what have led us to the current crisis. We need to address the problems of global climate change now. Already, some of which you have helped document, we see extreme weather, food supplies threatened by extreme weather, coastal flooding, draughts in some places and flooding in others, heightened frequency and/or severity of hurricanes and/or tornados, greater frequency of forest fires due to heat and dehydration, etc. Not ending fossil fuels ASAP is insane in the face of that crisis. Again, a crisis brought on by inadequate responses of the past. At the very least, continued use of carbon based fuels needs to be coupled with implementation of technologies to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
Yes, subsidies to encourage a switch to non-carbon based renewables would be a step in the right direction, as would removal of subsidies for carbon fuel consumption. Wind and solar have a very great potential. Especially when combined with hydroelectric, tidal generated power, hydrogen, and in conjunction with increases in battery efficiency and small scale alternative battery related energy generation.
Yes, I also support "policies that favor the poor in the plan to transform our society." Policies that by their very nature should take into account the negative affects of global climate change upon the poor and those least resilient to cope with those affects. One of those policy planks should include retraining of those in the fossil fuel industry so that they have opportunities to increase their standard of living rather than face unemployment and under employment.
We need to act, and we need to act now.
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill