• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Why would you think that if the fossil fuel market was weak and dysfunctional, that it would pose a threat to renewable energy.
The reality is that the renewable sources, cannot yet fill all the requirements, currently filled by fossil fuels.
Hydrocarbon energy storage is what will allow wind and solar to become mainstream realities, yet you seem resistant to the idea.

Fossil fuels have made both large corporations and brutal dictatorships extremely wealthy and powerful. There those companies and regimes have used their influence to delay action on climate change and instead get benefits and actions that benefited them.





There that massive influence has for example led to western governments having spent trillions of dollars on intervention in the Middle East. While at the same time spent a lot less on action on the transition away from fossil fuels, even with the massive cost of both climate change, toxic pollutants and dependency on ruthless dictatorships.

Fossil fuel companies could also have used some of their billion dollars profits to develop the fuels you propose if it had been an realistic option. While also with their massive influence easily got the government to develop the fuels you propose. Instead the fossil fuel companies still don't have any planes to produce significant amounts of the fuels you propose.
 
Fossil fuels have made both large corporations and brutal dictatorships extremely wealthy and powerful. There those companies and regimes have used their influence to delay action on climate change and instead get benefits and actions that benefited them.





There that massive influence has for example led to western governments having spent trillions of dollars on intervention in the Middle East. While at the same time spent a lot less on action on the transition away from fossil fuels, even with the massive cost of both climate change, toxic pollutants and dependency on ruthless dictatorships.

Fossil fuel companies could also have used some of their billion dollars profits to develop the fuels you propose if it had been an realistic option. While also with their massive influence easily got the government to develop the fuels you propose. Instead the fossil fuel companies still don't have any planes to produce significant amounts of the fuels you propose.
Perhaps you should not condemn the oil companies so much, as they are likely the ones who will make the changes to get CO2 emissions under control. It will not be intentional, but simply a side effect of market driven energy solutions!
 
Perhaps you should not condemn the oil companies so much, as they are likely the ones who will make the changes to get CO2 emissions under control. It will not be intentional, but simply a side effect of market driven energy solutions!

Of course the fossil fuel companies should be condemned because they are a big reason that action on climate change has been delayed for so many decades. There we now are running out of time and the fossil fuel companies still don't have any plans to produce a significant amount of the fuels you propose.





Also being dependent on fossil fuels means being dependent on ruthless dictatorships so you can’t really call it a functional market. Especially since those dictators use their wealth and influence to corrupt Western politics and manipulate fossil fuel prices. As well as using their massive wealth from fossil fuels to fund the golden life styles of themselves and their cronies instead of bettering the lives of the ordinary citizens. That at the same time the money is used to fund horrific wars.


 
Of course the fossil fuel companies should be condemned because they are a big reason that action on climate change has been delayed for so many decades. There we now are running out of time and the fossil fuel companies still don't have any plans to produce a significant amount of the fuels you propose.





Also being dependent on fossil fuels means being dependent on ruthless dictatorships so you can’t really call it a functional market. Especially since those dictators use their wealth and influence to corrupt Western politics and manipulate fossil fuel prices. As well as using their massive wealth from fossil fuels to fund the golden life styles of themselves and their cronies instead of bettering the lives of the ordinary citizens. That at the same time the money is used to fund horrific wars.


Again, you are speculating about what the oil companies plans are, because neither you are I know.
What we do know is that Exxon Baytown, is retooling one of their Units now, to make low carbon fuels
from captured CO2 and hydrogen from CH4.
 
Again, you are speculating about what the oil companies plans are, because neither you are I know.
What we do know is that Exxon Baytown, is retooling one of their Units now, to make low carbon fuels
from captured CO2 and hydrogen from CH4.

What is clear is that we are desperately running out of time on climate change and also the massive cost of toxic pollutions and dependency on ruthless dictators. There are also many positive examples of the transition away from fossil fuels is happening all across the world.




That at the same time there is many examples of the potential to reduce car dependency and save energy.




While the fossil fuel companies still after many decades still haven't publish any concrete plans to start produce significant amount of the fuels you propose.
 
What is clear is that we are desperately running out of time on climate change and also the massive cost of toxic pollutions and dependency on ruthless dictators. There are also many positive examples of the transition away from fossil fuels is happening all across the world.




That at the same time there is many examples of the potential to reduce car dependency and save energy.




While the fossil fuel companies still after many decades still haven't publish any concrete plans to start produce significant amount of the fuels you propose.
You are suffering under the illusion that there is some sort of time limit.
There is no tipping point, and all of the data beside computer simulations simulating impossible events,
show that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is very low.

Why would an oil company publish their plans and give their competition some advantage, before market conditions are ready and stable?
 
You are suffering under the illusion that there is some sort of time limit.
There is no tipping point, and all of the data beside computer simulations simulating impossible events,
show that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is very low.

Why would an oil company publish their plans and give their competition some advantage, before market conditions are ready and stable?

Republicans had during Trump's presidency plenty of opportunities to disprove the urgent need for action instead was this report published under federal agencies under Donald Trump.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."


There you also have the massive cost of toxic pollution and it also Western fossil fuel money that is funding the Russian war machine and the brutal regimes in the Middle East.




Also the fossil fuel market haven't been stable since the 70's oil crisis. That it time after time have been periods of skyrocketing fossil fuel prices because of conflicts and crisis. This combined with periods of price wars there Middle East countries have for example taking out North American competitors by ramping up the production. There the dictators in the Middle East would use the same tactics against the fuels you propose.
 
Republicans had during Trump's presidency plenty of opportunities to disprove the urgent need for action instead was this report published under federal agencies under Donald Trump.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."


There you also have the massive cost of toxic pollution and it also Western fossil fuel money that is funding the Russian war machine and the brutal regimes in the Middle East.




Also the fossil fuel market haven't been stable since the 70's oil crisis. That it time after time have been periods of skyrocketing fossil fuel prices because of conflicts and crisis. This combined with periods of price wars there Middle East countries have for example taking out North American competitors by ramping up the production. There the dictators in the Middle East would use the same tactics against the fuels you propose.
Again, there is no proof for any urgent action!
If you think some exists, then cite the peer reviewed publications that say so, and under what future scenarios?
 
Again, there is no proof for any urgent action!
If you think some exists, then cite the peer reviewed publications that say so, and under what future scenarios?
When will you ever get around to reading this?

It’s exactly what you were asking for.


Weird that you keep asking to see it but never acknowledge it.
 
When will you ever get around to reading this?

It’s exactly what you were asking for.


Weird that you keep asking to see it but never acknowledge it.
The IPCC is not a peer reviewed article, but a summary of the concepts of AGW.
Also, can you quote in the IPCC report where they are calling for urgency, that is not tied to a unlikely emission scenario?
 
The IPCC is not a peer reviewed article, but a summary of the concepts of AGW.
Also, can you quote in the IPCC report where they are calling for urgency, that is not tied to a unlikely emission scenario?
The IPCC is certainly peer reviewed. It’s not an article, it’s a comprehensive review.

I’m not bothering to waste my time finding quotes when you don’t even grasp what the report is.
 
How is that meaningful evidence?

Look like a path of indoctrination to me.
It’s called a consensus summary of people who study the problem for a living.

I realize you think you know more than everyone, even though you haven’t worked in the field at all and probably never met or discussed this with an actual working scientist in your life.

That’s why many of us laugh.
 
The IPCC is certainly peer reviewed. It’s not an article, it’s a comprehensive review.

I’m not bothering to waste my time finding quotes when you don’t even grasp what the report is.
You should say you are unable to fine any matching quotes!
 
Again, there is no proof for any urgent action!
If you think some exists, then cite the peer reviewed publications that say so, and under what future scenarios?

Here is a quote from the overview for the report I linked to. There that overview reference the chapters in the reports there those chapters in turn extensively refence peer review studies.

"However, the assumption that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past is no longer valid (Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 2). Observations collected around the world provide significant, clear, and compelling evidence that global average temperature is much higher, and is rising more rapidly, than anything modern civilization has experienced, with widespread and growing impacts (Figure 1.2) (CSSR, Ch. 1.9). The warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effects that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, have had on the climate (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1 and Figure 2.1).

Climate change is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us. Risks posed by climate variability and change vary by region and sector and by the vulnerability of people experiencing impacts. Social, economic, and geographic factors shape the exposure of people and communities to climate-related impacts and their capacity to respond. Risks are often highest for those that are already vulnerable, including low-income communities, some communities of color, children, and the elderly (Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 2; Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 1–3; Ch. 28: Adaptation, Introduction). Climate change threatens to exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities that result in higher exposure and sensitivity to extreme weather and climate-related events and other changes (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 1). Marginalized populations may also be affected disproportionately by actions to address the underlying causes and impacts of climate change, if they are not implemented under policies that consider existing inequalities (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 4; Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 4)."



Also that report was published by federal agencies in 2018. So that the Trump administrations and Republicans in Congress like James Inhofe could have easily stopped the report if it was not based on strong scientific evidence.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

 
Investment into renewable energy and green hydrogen can become an important part of rebuilding Ukraine when the horrific war is over. There Ukraine by exporting electricity and green hydrogen can help EU to end it's dependency on Russia and other brutal dictatorships.


 
Here is a quote from the overview for the report I linked to. There that overview reference the chapters in the reports there those chapters in turn extensively refence peer review studies.

"However, the assumption that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past is no longer valid (Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 2). Observations collected around the world provide significant, clear, and compelling evidence that global average temperature is much higher, and is rising more rapidly, than anything modern civilization has experienced, with widespread and growing impacts (Figure 1.2) (CSSR, Ch. 1.9). The warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effects that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, have had on the climate (Ch. 2: Climate, KM 1 and Figure 2.1).

Climate change is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us. Risks posed by climate variability and change vary by region and sector and by the vulnerability of people experiencing impacts. Social, economic, and geographic factors shape the exposure of people and communities to climate-related impacts and their capacity to respond. Risks are often highest for those that are already vulnerable, including low-income communities, some communities of color, children, and the elderly (Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 2; Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 1–3; Ch. 28: Adaptation, Introduction). Climate change threatens to exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities that result in higher exposure and sensitivity to extreme weather and climate-related events and other changes (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 1). Marginalized populations may also be affected disproportionately by actions to address the underlying causes and impacts of climate change, if they are not implemented under policies that consider existing inequalities (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 4; Ch. 28: Adaptation, KM 4)."



Also that report was published by federal agencies in 2018. So that the Trump administrations and Republicans in Congress like James Inhofe could have easily stopped the report if it was not based on strong scientific evidence.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

Let's discuss the first two paragraphs of your quote.
The first paragraph simply says that since we have had accurate thermometers, the average temperature has increased.
The second paragraph says that the possible impacts of that warming would fall on the poor disproportionally.
About those impacts on the poor, since we have been attempting to "Do Something" about climate change,
the price of basic food products has nearly doubled, some of that because of the ethanol program.
In many places, the price of electricity has increased quite a bit, not because of climate change, but partly because
of programs designed to fight climate change.
Now you are calling for more action to happen urgently, perhaps we would be better served by actually identifying
what the problem is vs attempting to solve a made up problem.
We do not have a CO2 problem, but an energy problem!
 
Let's discuss the first two paragraphs of your quote.
The first paragraph simply says that since we have had accurate thermometers, the average temperature has increased.
The second paragraph says that the possible impacts of that warming would fall on the poor disproportionally.
About those impacts on the poor, since we have been attempting to "Do Something" about climate change,
the price of basic food products has nearly doubled, some of that because of the ethanol program.
In many places, the price of electricity has increased quite a bit, not because of climate change, but partly because
of programs designed to fight climate change.
Now you are calling for more action to happen urgently, perhaps we would be better served by actually identifying
what the problem is vs attempting to solve a made up problem.
We do not have a CO2 problem, but an energy problem!

My quote had direct links to different chapters in the report. There if you had read those chapters you could see that there are many types of data that shows the rapid warming and that it caused by human emissions of C02. The chapters linked to in the quote also clearly shows the devastating effects climate change already have and will have in the future. There climate change also already have a negative effect on farming.


Also ever since the 70's oil crisis you time after time have had skyrocketing fossil fuel prices because of conflict and crisis. While you just during the last decades have seen rapid reduction in cost of renewable energy.


That at the same time action on climate change could pay for themselves simply from the positive effects of reducing toxic air pollutions.


There fossil fuels consumptions also leads to the enormous cost of being dependent on and funding ruthless dictatorships.
 
My quote had direct links to different chapters in the report. There if you had read those chapters you could see that there are many types of data that shows the rapid warming and that it caused by human emissions of C02. The chapters linked to in the quote also clearly shows the devastating effects climate change already have and will have in the future. There climate change also already have a negative effect on farming.


Also ever since the 70's oil crisis you time after time have had skyrocketing fossil fuel prices because of conflict and crisis. While you just during the last decades have seen rapid reduction in cost of renewable energy.


That at the same time action on climate change could pay for themselves simply from the positive effects of reducing toxic air pollutions.


There fossil fuels consumptions also leads to the enormous cost of being dependent on and funding ruthless dictatorships.
All of what you write are reasons to get off of oil, I agree, we need to get off of oil as quickly as possible.
Where we disagree is the path to take to get off of oil.
I am advocating that if we equally encourage all viable paths to a sustainable energy future, we will all be better off.
Battery electric cars are not a viable path to get off of oil.
 
All of what you write are reasons to get off of oil, I agree, we need to get off of oil as quickly as possible.
Where we disagree is the path to take to get off of oil.
I am advocating that if we equally encourage all viable paths to a sustainable energy future, we will all be better off.
Battery electric cars are not a viable path to get off of oil.

Electric cars works even in the northern most part of Norway.


While the fossil fuel companies have known about the need for action on climate change and the massive cost of being dependent on ruthless dictators for many decades and still not have publish any concrete plans to start produce significant amount of the fuels you propose.

That at the same time the fuels you propose will require many times more electricity and energy than electric cars. There that any electricity and energy is needed to replace fossil fuels in many other areas so that we can reduce the devastating effects of climate change and also reduce the dependency on brutal dictators.

 
Electric cars works even in the northern most part of Norway.


While the fossil fuel companies have known about the need for action on climate change and the massive cost of being dependent on ruthless dictators for many decades and still not have publish any concrete plans to start produce significant amount of the fuels you propose.

That at the same time the fuels you propose will require many times more electricity and energy than electric cars. There that any electricity and energy is needed to replace fossil fuels in many other areas so that we can reduce the devastating effects of climate change and also reduce the dependency on brutal dictators.

I am not sure why you choose not to see that replacing IC cars with battery electric cars will take a long time, and will not have much of an impact on emissions!
What we need to fix is every vehicle that burns oil based fuels, heavy trucks, ships, jets, ect!
Fixing the fuel does this, changing cars to battery electrics, does not!
 
I am not sure why you choose not to see that replacing IC cars with battery electric cars will take a long time, and will not have much of an impact on emissions!
What we need to fix is every vehicle that burns oil based fuels, heavy trucks, ships, jets, ect!
Fixing the fuel does this, changing cars to battery electrics, does not!

Fossil fuel companies are not able to produce the fuels you propose even with today’s massive increase in fossil fuel prices that funds the Russian war machine.


Also the rapid transition away from fossil fuel will require massive amounts of energy and electricity so you need to select the most efficient solutions. When it comes to new vehicles it's electric vehicles that require many times less electricity compared to the fuels you propose. New cars are often driven longer distances thereby increasing the impact. Electric cars can also be used as energy storage and therefore help to speed up the build out of cheap renewable energy.


Investment in public transport and bike lanes can both lead to a more efficient and cheaper transport system as well as speed up the retirement of older fossil fuel cars.



Some older fossil fuel cars might soon also be replaced with self-driving taxis; this can be a part of a very efficient transport system. There you take public transport along the major commuter routes and if needed take an electric taxi the last mile.


While yes, you need alternative fuels in some areas like for example long distance shipping and airplanes. Still hydrogen and even more so the fuels you propose will require massive amounts of energy to produce and the amount of sustainable biofuels are very limited. So that you also need efficient measures in those areas. Like for example that train travel can replace some shorter flights and more business meetings can be conducted online. There are also opportunities for ships to get some of their propulsion from for example modern sails.

 
Fossil fuel companies are not able to produce the fuels you propose even with today’s massive increase in fossil fuel prices that funds the Russian war machine.


Also the rapid transition away from fossil fuel will require massive amounts of energy and electricity so you need to select the most efficient solutions. When it comes to new vehicles it's electric vehicles that require many times less electricity compared to the fuels you propose. New cars are often driven longer distances thereby increasing the impact. Electric cars can also be used as energy storage and therefore help to speed up the build out of cheap renewable energy.


Investment in public transport and bike lanes can both lead to a more efficient and cheaper transport system as well as speed up the retirement of older fossil fuel cars.



Some older fossil fuel cars might soon also be replaced with self-driving taxis; this can be a part of a very efficient transport system. There you take public transport along the major commuter routes and if needed take an electric taxi the last mile.


While yes, you need alternative fuels in some areas like for example long distance shipping and airplanes. Still hydrogen and even more so the fuels you propose will require massive amounts of energy to produce and the amount of sustainable biofuels are very limited. So that you also need efficient measures in those areas. Like for example that train travel can replace some shorter flights and more business meetings can be conducted online. There are also opportunities for ships to get some of their propulsion from for example modern sails.

You still refuse to see that the options are limited.
Solar and Wind alone cannot meet our future energy requirements without massive energy storage.
All of your points involve people limiting their lifestyles in some way, even battery electric cars.
Why go there when we have other options that will cut emissions more, and not require limiting choices people make?
P.S. The price of oil will need to stabilize at the higher level, not just a price spike because of a war.
 
You still refuse to see that the options are limited.
Solar and Wind alone cannot meet our future energy requirements without massive energy storage.
All of your points involve people limiting their lifestyles in some way, even battery electric cars.
Why go there when we have other options that will cut emissions more, and not require limiting choices people make?
P.S. The price of oil will need to stabilize at the higher level, not just a price spike because of a war.

The fossil fuel market is a boom and bust market. That you have periods of short supply when fossil fuel companies and ruthless dictators are making record profits. This combined with periods of oversupply when for example the Saudis ramp up the production to take out their competitors. So waiting for the oil prices to stabilize on a higher level can take time. Time we don't have because of climate change and we also need to rapidly stop the funding of Putin's crime against humanity in Ukraine.




Also many families are already financially struggling because they are forced to own a car to get to work and do errands. While investments into for example public transport and bike lanes can save families a lot of money and create more freedom. There electric cars can also be cheaper to drive and own.



It is also possible to combine many different types of renewable energy, energy storage and other ways to regulate supply and demand of renewables instead of simply waiting for your inefficient fuels. There you are also now seeing a massive build out of renewable energy and there can be great potential to speed up that build out.

 
The fossil fuel market is a boom and bust market. That you have periods of short supply when fossil fuel companies and ruthless dictators are making record profits. This combined with periods of oversupply when for example the Saudis ramp up the production to take out their competitors. So waiting for the oil prices to stabilize on a higher level can take time. Time we don't have because of climate change and we also need to rapidly stop the funding of Putin's crime against humanity in Ukraine.




Also many families are already financially struggling because they are forced to own a car to get to work and do errands. While investments into for example public transport and bike lanes can save families a lot of money and create more freedom. There electric cars can also be cheaper to drive and own.



It is also possible to combine many different types of renewable energy, energy storage and other ways to regulate supply and demand of renewables instead of simply waiting for your inefficient fuels. There you are also now seeing a massive build out of renewable energy and there can be great potential to speed up that build out.

Sorry you still do not understand, and likely it is intentional. We will need every energy storage option open to us to replace fossil fuels, there is really no way around that!
 
Back
Top Bottom