I had another thought on this post. It will take a lot of money to transition away from fossil. In some cases, there are no alternatives to operate machinery too large for batteries, too fast, travel too far, etc. Ironically, the mineral balance needed to achieve even a fraction of the transition requires additional mining capacity of unimaginable scale. The giant earth-moving equipment needed to extract more minerals for more batteries can only happen with liquid fossil fuel. Ironic.
So, in this case, there is no "end" to fossil fuels unless we develop a futuristic not-yet-conceived form of energy that is dense enough, powerful enough, renewable enough, and in low-cost plentiful supply to completely turn off the oil spigot.
Will, the number you quote for subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry should be prefaced that the overwhelming majority of this support comes from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. The U.S. support of fuel subsidies for people needing to buy energy is way down at the bottom of the list of countries. There is little anyone can do about those country-owned oil industries. For example, in the case of Russia, it represents over 60% of its GDP. I don't see Russia and others changing anytime soon.
I do agree with you that making them change their ways is practically impossible. However, this is why summits like COP exist. There should be considerable international pressure on them for a phase out of oil industry support.
I guess, I was more trying to demonstrate that the funds to pay for rolling clean energy technology out fast enough isn't an unrealistic number, as we already spend that much on supporting the oil industry.
Hi Will.
I had another thought on this post. It will take a lot of money to transition away from fossil. In some cases, there are no alternatives to operate machinery too large for batteries, too fast, travel too far, etc. Ironically, the mineral balance needed to achieve even a fraction of the transition requires additional mining capacity of unimaginable scale. The giant earth-moving equipment needed to extract more minerals for more batteries can only happen with liquid fossil fuel. Ironic.
So, in this case, there is no "end" to fossil fuels unless we develop a futuristic not-yet-conceived form of energy that is dense enough, powerful enough, renewable enough, and in low-cost plentiful supply to completely turn off the oil spigot.
Will, the number you quote for subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry should be prefaced that the overwhelming majority of this support comes from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. The U.S. support of fuel subsidies for people needing to buy energy is way down at the bottom of the list of countries. There is little anyone can do about those country-owned oil industries. For example, in the case of Russia, it represents over 60% of its GDP. I don't see Russia and others changing anytime soon.
Hi David, that is a very good point well made!
I do agree with you that making them change their ways is practically impossible. However, this is why summits like COP exist. There should be considerable international pressure on them for a phase out of oil industry support.
I guess, I was more trying to demonstrate that the funds to pay for rolling clean energy technology out fast enough isn't an unrealistic number, as we already spend that much on supporting the oil industry.
But again, fantastic point very well made