The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.

The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China’s top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.

  •  banana_meccanica   ( @banana_meccanica@feddit.it ) 
    15•1 year ago

    That’s why never have a chance. This greedy bastards full of shit do not give a fuck about the planet. Play a vital role in maintaining global energy security mean keep digging money, keep maintain the power, richs and poors, create and consolidate a world where the 1% can keep going around the globe with airplanes, build villas same as medieval castles, buy testla to feeling ecofriendly, having someone below like slaves to feeling important, while offert them a life of work for nothing. Buying my cars, consume my petroil, spread your legs and open your butthole. This world is doomed and smell.

    •  zephyreks   ( @zephyreks@lemmy.ca ) 
      1•1 year ago

      Most of China’s increased electricity demand is to bring poor people who are currently farming in rural fields into urban jobs within big cities. It’s to help meet the growing demand of a population that currently has:

      1. 296 cars/1000p (US: 908/1000p)

      2. 73.7% Internet connectivity (US: 92%)

      3. Limited heating capacity because of very little natural gas supply (US: this basically isn’t a problem because the US has infinite gas reserves)

      4. Rolling blackouts in the summer because of AC use since China and other countries that make up the Global South have been disproportionately affected by climate change (US: this isn’t really a problem)

      But yes, please feel free to blame the rich… but please don’t ignore the fact that you ARE the rich.

  •  ristoril_zip   ( @ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip ) English
    7•1 year ago

    They’re probably right in a very general sense, at least in the short and medium terms. Fossil fuels have a lot of qualities that make them hard to out compete for some tasks. But we can get the usage of them back to levels that aren’t destructive to our habitats. And in the long term it’s absolutely possible to eliminate their use.

    •  TranscendentalEmpire   ( @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ) 
      5•1 year ago

      Fossil fuels have a lot of qualities that make them hard to out compete for some tasks.

      Yeap, unfortunately from a engineering standpoint it’s hard not to take advantage of such an energy dense fuel. Even if we had completely invested in nuclear power, there would still be scenarios where it would logistically make more sense to bring fuel to creat energy rather than transporting that energy.

      And in the long term it’s absolutely possible to eliminate their use.

      I think it’ll be possible to potentially eliminate their use as a fuel source, but I’m not sure if we’ll ever eliminate our need for hydrocarbons for things like plastics, solvents, and fertilizers.

      We need to move away from fossil fuels for obvious reasons, but one of the things I’m kinda afraid of as we transition away from them is that fossil fuels corporations will use the global poor as hostages.

      The most populated regions on the globe are dependent on cheap hydrocarbon base fertilizers to maintain the nitrogen content of their soil. The reason these fertilizers are so affordable is their production is a byproduct of massive amounts of fuel refining.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if the corporations started to cut the production or access of fertilizer to large populations of the global poor, as a “look at what the leftist are making me do to the poor” tactic.

      •  kitonthenet   ( @kitonthenet@kbin.social ) 
        2•1 year ago

        Doesn’t matter, if they’re still gonna burn coal I shouldn’t have to switch to renewables either, or at the very least not on the quick timetable. Either all in or not at all, it’s not like the effects above 2C aren’t going to kill everyone anyway

          •  ristoril_zip   ( @ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip ) English
            4•1 year ago

            Unfortunately it’s an easy sentiment to promulgate. It taps into feelings of fairness and justice. Those are some very foundational emotional drivers for humans

            However, I think there’s a chance to turn that sort of reasoning around. Like if we appeal to the idea of right and wrong. If using fossil fuels is like stealing or assault or worse, then the fact that someone else is doing it doesn’t suddenly make it ok. It makes the person doing it a bad person.

            The problem with fossil fuel use currently is that so many people are using them and whole countries and ways of life have been built around using them. Getting rid of fossil fuels has the potential to be as disruptive as getting rid of slavery.

    •  zephyreks   ( @zephyreks@lemmy.ca ) 
      1•1 year ago

      Because on a per-capita basis, you still outpollute China by a factor of at least 2?

      Because unlike China, your government moves incredibly slowly and needs more momentum to actually accomplish change?

      •  kitonthenet   ( @kitonthenet@kbin.social ) 
        1•1 year ago

        Per capita basis

        Carbon is carbon, mass is mass, and heat is heat, none of it cares about population size, we could just as easily look at it as a per-gdp basis, and it would be just as useful

        Government of China says we don’t need to change, or at least they don’t, I don’t think I should either then. Especially considering no climate change policy works without the whole world decarbonizing, including China, regardless of how small their number looks on a per capita basis