• Punshhh
    I noticed that, they are talking about all the water on the planet boiling off into space.
    I didn’t mean to be that alarmist.

    What I was thinking of by runaway is when the tipping points and feedback loops become triggered and fall like dominoes. Releasing, (or stop removing) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which dwarfs the amount we have been releasing by burning fossil fuels. Once that point is reached life will become very tumultuous and difficult.

    I don’t think we can know what that means. But what we do know is sea level will rise more rapidly to a maximum of over 90 metres. Ocean ecosystems will collapse, most land ecosystems will be under extreme stress, many will collapse. Growing enough food to feed the population will become impossible. And this will last, or get worse for thousands of years.
  • unenlightened
    This video is out of date. The climate has got worse, the political situation has also got worse. Extinction rebellion has failed. Emissions are still increasing.

  • frank

    During the European dark ages, there were times when monasteries were like fortresses, protecting the last vestiges of civilization Europe had left. If you wanted to see a library, they only existed in the monasteries.

    I'm guessing it will be that way for a while. Who knows what will follow from there. Something really cool probably.
  • Punshhh
    Yes, that sounds about right. I was thinking of three fortresses. North America, Europe and the region of China. The rest of the world would be cut loose.

    Hopefully nuclear bombs won’t be thrown into the mix.
  • frank

    I think Washington and Moscow could possibly be gone in a couple of centuries from nuclear war. We won't be around to see it tho.
  • Punshhh
    Fingers crossed they won’t.
    I see Russia as a failed state now. I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.
  • frank
    see Russia as a failed state nowPunshhh

    But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?

    I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.Punshhh

    That would be cool if they avoided war and just had the occasional cold war.
  • javi2541997
    But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?frank


    Russia is invincible and will never fall out.
  • frank
    Russia is invincible and will never fall out.javi2541997

    I agree. A million years from now the surface of the earth will be covered in a swirling mist that is basically Russia waiting for some aliens to visit so it can morph itself into their form and confuse the hell out of everybody.
  • Banno

    Changes from 1884 to 2022 in global temperatures from cooler than average to hotter.(Supplied: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio)
  • Relativist
    People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life.Kasperanza
    You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
    (See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight.Relativist

    This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest.Relativist

    Please stop making posts that are reasonable and based on common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:
  • ssu
    Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?

    What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?

    Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).

  • unenlightened
    Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?ssu

    Probably because they're a bunch of conspiracy theorists a doom merchants. Unless the policy was a secret one that directly contradicted their public commitments on climate or something complicated like that.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.