[dohboi]

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fue ... e.html#jCp

Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study

...the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past.

But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.

...looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture.

Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.

But this time the future could be different...the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.

The study highlights numerous examples of speedier transitions that are often overlooked by analysts...

The slowness of transitions to new energy systems is something that has been an important them in both PO and GW circles for years, so this seemed a particularly apt study to discuss in an environmental portion of a PO site.

Have at it!!

[onlooker]

Well since most countries around the world are reliant on their govt. to lead them, it would take governments around the world especially of the major countries having a total commitment to this to have a chance of success. We have seen in the climate summits including the latest one in Paris how countries are dragging their feet and not really putting in place anything resembling Herculean efforts to curb FF. That fact that this could be done does not change my observation that the will to do this is not there. Perhaps because as we have noted the corporations who see this as affecting their profits have so captured the power structures of the planet.

[Outcast_Searcher]

But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.

But given the requirement given above and human nature, clearly this won't happen.

And this is MUCH different than, say, electricity scaling up. Adding electricity to the mix is far different than eliminating all fossil fuel burning since it basically just adds to the demand to burn fossil fuels (by humans that always want, collectively, to consume more).

IMO, we may as well hope for a benevolent purple unicorn to become our master and FORCE us to stop burning fossil fuels real soon now. Given the consequences of that decision, resistance would clearly be very strong indeed.

[efarmer]

Rapid change takes incentive. Normally rapid change is the result of a paradigm shift,
for example the dawning of Industrial Revolution, the dawning of the Petroleum Era,
the dawning of the Internet, the discovery of the New World, OR it is the result of
dire consequences. What is possible in this case of FF phase out is simply not incentivized
while FF easy living is possible, and it is. When it is not possible, the resources required
to segway to another scheme are so severely limited that it is almost impossible to do
in the chaos that prevails. Similar to my take on fractional banking in another thread.

In essence: Go way out on a limb with a saw, pivot back toward the tree and
saw off the limb you are perched on. Now you are motivated by gravity and
impending doom to phase out limb perching and seek sustainable perching
of a better and more sustainable nature. You are also in free fall, and have
3 seconds before you impact the earth with a saw in your hand. As you freefall,
take out your iPhone and begin googling"

"alternatives to tree limb perching"

For the scientifically inclined, the large societal acceptance of tree limb perching
and it's various financial subsidies and ease of access had provided you with a very
nice limb to perch on and it was 138 feet up in the air.

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

[jedrider]

Curious if I put all solar panels on my roof, would I be able to continue 'happy motoring' in an EV?

I left out all the externalities of 1000 mile salads and such, and how the solar panels are constructed, but I wonder how that works out.

[dohboi]

I think efarmer states the conundrum we're in rather well. We obviously have to reach out and try to grab another limb, but by now that will be a very...painful process. And every second we dither about wanting to avoid that pain, the amount of necessary pain gets higher and the likelihood that nothing at all will stop our fall increases.

On cars, though, most people don't have cars for longer than 10 years, so a major transition on that front is certainly possible.

Of course, mostly we have to start seeing cars as the enormously extravagant and deadly luxury that they are.

Same with most flying, most meat and dairy consumption...

As Kevin Anderson pointed out, the fastest way to reduce our emissions is by crashing the economy one way or the other, and we really do need the fastest way.

[dohboi]

"the <1% ... will engineer gains for themselves"

That's why pitch forks will be needed! '-)

[yellowcanoe]

In Canada we have the Leap Manifesto https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ which proposes to convert generation of electricity entirely to renewable sources within two decades and completely phase out fossil fuels by 2050. As if this was not challenging enough, they also want to greatly increase various forms of social spending and eliminate barriers to entry of migrants to the country. I don't even want to think about how many people would show up if we had a completely open door policy on immigration!

[Tanada]

It might be theoretically possible in the same way that we could build domed cities 50 feet below water on the continental shelf. I think it is just as likely that we will be building those underwater domed cities as it is we will be giving up fossil fuels voluntarily any time soon.

[Outcast_Searcher]

As if this was not challenging enough, they also want to greatly increase various forms of social spending and eliminate barriers to entry of migrants to the country. I don't even want to think about how many people would show up if we had a completely open door policy on immigration!

That's interesting yellow. Last I checked (out of curiosity), for a US Citizen to transfer their citizenship to Canada, they had to demonstrate they could support themselves via some form of regular income. I'm not even sure if a US citizen could just demonstrate they're a multi-millionaire and can live off their investments currently, or if they have to have a job, a business, etc.

So going from that (which seems an eminently sensible policy to me -- deadbeat immigrants generally not welcome) to a "completely open door policy" on immigration would be a HUGE change. No doubt they would fund it by a huge increases in productive citizens' taxes, and (if like America in assigning blame), blame all the resulting problems on "the rich" (as though "the rich" don't collectively pay a huge proportion of the income taxes).

[dohboi]

If Trump is elected, there might be quite a few interested in Canadian citizenship. I suppose a different set may be interested if Hilary or Bernie are elected...

[Subjectivist]

If Trump is elected, there might be quite a few interested in Canadian citizenship. I suppose a different set may be interested if Hilary or Bernie are elected...

IIRC Rosey O'Donnell swore she was leaving the country it Bush were reelected in 2004. Last I read she still lives in America. Why some attention seekers have to make this declaration every four years is beyond me.

[Peak_Yeast]

I agree that we could change that aspect.

I am also fairly certain that it will not happen.

And I am dead certain it will not change our trajectory significantly.

[Hawkcreek]

This heading is a good example to use in showing the difference between "Possible" and "Probable".
It is generally better to make decisions based on probability rather than possibility.

[dohboi]

But aren't most revolutions deemed improbably before they actually happen? Did anyone really think that the entire Soviet Empire would crumble as quickly and as (relatively) peacefully as it did? For a more negative example, it was only a few doomers and savants who accurately foretold the meltdown in 2008 before it happened--everyone else thought it was either impossible or at least highly, highly improbable.

(On the topic of skateboards, a local 'boy genius' recently successfully constructed a small rocket. He decided that the smartest thing to do with it was to put it on his skateboard and take an awesome ride! He did not survive the trip. Online references to the Darwin Awards were not appreciated by his family and friends.)

[ROCKMAN]

"It is generally better to make decisions based on probability rather than possibility. True but I don't see any meaningful decisions being made based on either what is probable or possible. Decisions are being made on the basis of benefit by those making the decisions. What is possible is meaningless because decisions aren’t based upon what could be done. And what will “probably be done”? I see very little probability and much more certainty. And IMHO that certainty is to continue on the path we are on until circumstances force a change. And the force behind those changes will be neither gradual nor gentle.

[Hawkcreek]

"It is generally better to make decisions based on probability rather than possibility. True but I don't see any meaningful decisions being made based on either what is probable or possible. Decisions are being made on the basis of benefit by those making the decisions. What is possible is meaningless because decisions aren’t based upon what could be done. And what will “probably be done”? I see very little probability and much more certainty. And IMHO that certainty is to continue on the path we are on until circumstances force a change. And the force behind those changes will be neither gradual nor gentle.

All true, but I was referring more to my own decisions rather than others. I decided years ago that things were probably going to get worse and worse, with nothing being done by the PTB.
That is why I live in a remote off-grid homestead with enough resources to support myself and my family for a good long time. I know that doesn't guarantee comfort, or even survival in the future, but it is the best that I could come up with. I think it improves our probabilities a little bit, anyway.