To limit heating to 1,5 ° C, it should leave 60% of the oil and gas in the ground, and 90% of the coal
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/09/08/pour-limiter-le-rechauffement-a-1-5-c-il-faudrait-laisser-60-du-petrole-et-du-gaz-dans-le-sol-et-90-du-charbon_6093946_3244.htmlWe should, we must, we will have ... etc, to reduce insecurity we should arrest most delinquents, we often hear this kind of remark in speeches, yet there is not much that exchange.
The world is currently taking the opposite direction. Fossil energies (coal, oil and gas), the combustion of which is responsible for most of global warming, still account for 81% of primary energy demand and their production continues to increase. Countries are forecasting an average annual increase of 2% over the next decade, according to the UN Production Gap Report, released in late 2020.
There are therefore two worlds, that of
emissions should be limited, and that of
we need more energy.In short, two logics clash, that of physical risks (induced by climate change) versus that of transition risks (induced by a policy of reducing fossil consumption).
What you explain to us in more than 9900 messages (!) Is that putting an end to the use of fossil fuels would be more harmful than the RCA itself.
To this we can answer the following:
1) There is not enough data to support or disprove such a claim.
2) None of the projections
serious do not take into account such a drop in fossil consumption in the future.
We should probably be in a hybrid model, which my faith seems to fit perfectly with the "infinite correction" ideology. On the one hand, this will make it possible to financialize the fight against RCA, to deploy colossal technical means to counter the effects (geoengineering etc ...) and to continue to take a little money with fossil fuels, energy at how much necessary for the implementation of renewable energies. It is the mega business of the century.
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.