But none of it is relevant to the fact of global warming. None of it can touch that.
The real question is then how do we be utilitarian, i.e. optimize the outcome for real people. Now, for over next 50-100 years before all the fossil carbon is gone. Then what? The temperature and the sea level will continue to rise until they level out, stabilize, in up to 300 years. 3 degrees and 30 feet. At least. And more. The Antarctic ice sheet will be long gone and the oceans will keep thermally expanding. For thousands of years.
How is it in the self interest of India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt to industrialize and then starve and thirst and burn and drown?
Or are we clever enough monkeys to prevent the latter with a quadrillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure?
Without any energy infrastructure. Without massiveredundant solar, wind, wave, tide energy capture, HVDC transmission, and storage (there’d be no real excess; desalination).
We need that now. For then. For 60 years max for oil. Less for gas. and at least 70 for coal (all that lovely brown coal…). Then what? In a much hotter, much smaller, world.
Obviously, there are needs best met by fossil fuels. But, to remain dependent on them is foolish when the cost and availability run out. Even 20 years ago, I spent a little time in some refugee camps in North Africa, and the families had light at night from solar panels connected to a 12 volt car battery, no candle required for a decent light into the evening hours. Now with LEDs, a simple setup could provide good lighting, and charging of the ever present phones.
Cooking needs more energy, of course, so LP gas is probably going to be around for a while, as is wood where available. But just because the poor may not be able to afford clean energy, does not mean those who can afford it should not try to use renewable resources as much as possible.
Also, I looked up Vijay Jayaraj, and see he has a masters degree, but primarily is a journalist/writer for groups of a certain persuasion, in other words, a shill. I am sure some he writes has some truth, but ignores other truths.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
189
Using the same logic, cigarettes don’t cause cancer because banning cigarettes would hurt the tobacco industry.
Do those two BIoLogos people at COP30 have degrees in physical chemistry? IF Jayaraj is a shill, so are these people.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
191
Can you point to anything in Jayaraj’s article that refutes the conclusion that increasing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is increasing global temperatures?
We need to ALL get real here. Bill needs to stop being a denialist and the rest of us need to work according to the way of the world. Give devils their due. Vijay has a point. Shill or no.