But it never stops there. It’s never just “securing supplies” during the transition time. The next step is always: But it’s cheaper if we do long-term contracts. Followed by, saving money that was meant for the transition because it’s obviously not a pressing issue with long-term supplies “secured” (in parantheses because it’s never actually secure, just planned long-term).
Oh, there is a long-term demand? Guess then doubling down on drilling even more will work, too.
And this is literally going on for decades already.
You are ignoring the part that was about the motivations that push for the transition, which isn’t about price. Those motivations are not going away, they are only getting more urgent. The rapid transition is a thing of recent years and has not been dragging on for decades.
You are also evading the question before. The only alternative to securing transition supplies is a harsh and sudden lack of supplies with lack in alternative capacities with severe impact on economy and might even necessitate emergency shutdowns. If you oppose the one thing you are necessarily in favour of the latter or evading reality.
No one is talking about a sudden stop, but a normal transition out of fossil fuels… oh, wait. That was fucking 30-35 years ago. But instead we chose to believe the lie that it’s just not possible right now but some technological advances will just magically apear soon™.
But at some point 15 years ago the pressure (hello inceasing extreme weather periods and natural disasters…) to do something grew and so we needed to run the next fairy tale how we actually don’t need to anything if we just plan to put extra fees on fossil fuels that pay for the transition. Not now of course, that could cost us money so maybe in 10 to 15 years.
But then 5 years ago those fees were starting to not look like some imaginary far away future and so we needed -again- yet another narrative why it’s not possible to start and suddenly we got flodded by stories of how those plans are actually bad because they don’t work and increasing fossil fuel costs would just damage our industry, and it’s all useless anyway as nobody else is caring for climate change anyway so our own decisions are meaningless. Why hurt ourselves when “the whole world” (not some real one, but propaganda doesn’t care about reality) happily burns the planet down.
Guess what… wars and otherconflicts managed to increase those fossil fuel prices anyway. So we now are finally forced to start that transition. Right? No, we instead cry about those costs and how it hurts economies and really, really need to be brought down by subsidies and long-term contracts. Yes, of course we will start the transition, just not now because… Maybe we should look into nuclear again that is economically failing for decades or wait for fusion that will be ready very soon. Trust me bro…
Oh well. What an easy and completely pointless polemic to talk about what should have been done 35 years ago, when there was no feasible alternative available for electric mobility and photovoltaic and wind power were still miles away from the technological maturity they are now. As a matter of fact the oil crises did have a lot of beneficial consequences. The Netherlands for example reversed course almost 180° and instead of turning their country into a fully US style car only hell hole, they initiated the transformation that put them in a position where they have their mobility needs in many baskets. Also Austria was getting serious about hydropower back then etc. But of course much more could and should have been done also in the 90s for example.
I am talking about recent times and the future. You are calling me an idiot simply for pointing out that we need to cover fossil fuel demands during the transition as we’d otherwise face an economic crash and harsh consequences for common people too (energy limitations, maybe outages etc). Yet you are not even denying that those resources are needed also in a transition that is happening as rapidly as possible.
I am not sure in which alternative reality you are living in which there is no meaningful transition happening in Europe. Photovoltaic and wind power, especially also the much more reliable off-shore wind power output has been expanded rapidly in recent years, substantially changing the energy mix in the EU. EV adoption is more of a mixed bag while there has been counterproductive lobbying by some future Nokia companies we are moving ahead, unlike the US for example. Even if slightly trailing China.
It’s not polemic and talking about a past we can’t change, but showing a clear and impossible to miss pattern.
You say yourself that moving away from car centric mobility was possible 50 years ago and that hydropower was (yes, not for every country because it’s dependent on geography) was possible. And what did most countries do instead? They went hard for more burning of fossil fuels instead and at immense costs, too. Because lobbyists told them that the transition isn’t possible. And if it is, then it’s far too expensive. And really needs to be planned slow and meticulous to have any chance of success. And then they did basically nothing.
That is the exact same stuff the exact same lobbyists tell you today and you parrot it.
Sorry, but if you can’t even see it when explicitly pointed that direction, then you are indeed an idiot and part of the problem.
Like I said, you can delve for ages in the past, then get nihilistic and then prevent change in the present. Or you can have a look at reality and see that the energy mix for electricity has changed massively. Fossil fuels (all of them together) stand at 25% of the mix across the EU and also absolute capacities in TWh have substantially decreased. And this is already with renewables compensating for reduced nuclear power plant output (something that can be debated on its own from various directions).
Overall energy beyond electricity is rapidly changing too. We are seeing a big rise in solar power, heat distribution systems in urban areas and a big push for heat exchanger systems running on electricity for home heating. Fossile fuels for heating are phased out in many countries entirely.
Are there lobbyists working against that? Sure. But supporting that transition doesn’t mean one has to demand the entirely polemic and unrealistic position that one should not secure fossil fuels needed even in the most rapid transition scenario. You are talking about slippery slope, yet I have yet to hear a clear word from you want alternative there is to that in the real world without running into a state of emergency with energy shortages.
Ad hominem attacks are not strengthening your case.
I don’t need to strengthen my case. You are -either willfully or stupidly- ignoring the arguments I told you to repeat again and again your propaganda-induced delusion of how a faster transition isn’t possible. That is EXACTLY THE SAME LIE TOLD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS NOW.
Your argument is that change is perpetually prevented by slippery slope lobbying. Yet that change is happening as we speak (within 4 years for example the share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the EU has decreased from 38% to 28%), even if it needed way too long to get started. You don’t see the contradiction? I was merely stating the fact that remaining demand has to be secured in the short term, you are not even clear about it if you deny that. Even with the most rapid change you don’t just stop using fossil fuels from one month to the next. You can come with all the slippery slope you like but that is simply a reality, unless you favor hard change with energy shutdowns etc.
It remains unclear of what you mean by faster transition. I was never saying that it is impossible to fasten the process. Unless you want to speed up transition to complete fossil fuel independence to “over night” overnight, there is need for continued fossil fuel supply.
But it never stops there. It’s never just “securing supplies” during the transition time. The next step is always: But it’s cheaper if we do long-term contracts. Followed by, saving money that was meant for the transition because it’s obviously not a pressing issue with long-term supplies “secured” (in parantheses because it’s never actually secure, just planned long-term).
Oh, there is a long-term demand? Guess then doubling down on drilling even more will work, too.
And this is literally going on for decades already.
You are ignoring the part that was about the motivations that push for the transition, which isn’t about price. Those motivations are not going away, they are only getting more urgent. The rapid transition is a thing of recent years and has not been dragging on for decades.
You are also evading the question before. The only alternative to securing transition supplies is a harsh and sudden lack of supplies with lack in alternative capacities with severe impact on economy and might even necessitate emergency shutdowns. If you oppose the one thing you are necessarily in favour of the latter or evading reality.
No one is talking about a sudden stop, but a normal transition out of fossil fuels… oh, wait. That was fucking 30-35 years ago. But instead we chose to believe the lie that it’s just not possible right now but some technological advances will just magically apear soon™.
But at some point 15 years ago the pressure (hello inceasing extreme weather periods and natural disasters…) to do something grew and so we needed to run the next fairy tale how we actually don’t need to anything if we just plan to put extra fees on fossil fuels that pay for the transition. Not now of course, that could cost us money so maybe in 10 to 15 years.
But then 5 years ago those fees were starting to not look like some imaginary far away future and so we needed -again- yet another narrative why it’s not possible to start and suddenly we got flodded by stories of how those plans are actually bad because they don’t work and increasing fossil fuel costs would just damage our industry, and it’s all useless anyway as nobody else is caring for climate change anyway so our own decisions are meaningless. Why hurt ourselves when “the whole world” (not some real one, but propaganda doesn’t care about reality) happily burns the planet down.
Guess what… wars and otherconflicts managed to increase those fossil fuel prices anyway. So we now are finally forced to start that transition. Right? No, we instead cry about those costs and how it hurts economies and really, really need to be brought down by subsidies and long-term contracts. Yes, of course we will start the transition, just not now because… Maybe we should look into nuclear again that is economically failing for decades or wait for fusion that will be ready very soon. Trust me bro…
And in 50 years idiots will still tell the story of a proper transition… sometimes in the future -any day now©-, just not right now as we obviously can’t and need to prioritize our energy security first.
Oh well. What an easy and completely pointless polemic to talk about what should have been done 35 years ago, when there was no feasible alternative available for electric mobility and photovoltaic and wind power were still miles away from the technological maturity they are now. As a matter of fact the oil crises did have a lot of beneficial consequences. The Netherlands for example reversed course almost 180° and instead of turning their country into a fully US style car only hell hole, they initiated the transformation that put them in a position where they have their mobility needs in many baskets. Also Austria was getting serious about hydropower back then etc. But of course much more could and should have been done also in the 90s for example.
I am talking about recent times and the future. You are calling me an idiot simply for pointing out that we need to cover fossil fuel demands during the transition as we’d otherwise face an economic crash and harsh consequences for common people too (energy limitations, maybe outages etc). Yet you are not even denying that those resources are needed also in a transition that is happening as rapidly as possible.
I am not sure in which alternative reality you are living in which there is no meaningful transition happening in Europe. Photovoltaic and wind power, especially also the much more reliable off-shore wind power output has been expanded rapidly in recent years, substantially changing the energy mix in the EU. EV adoption is more of a mixed bag while there has been counterproductive lobbying by some future Nokia companies we are moving ahead, unlike the US for example. Even if slightly trailing China.
It’s not polemic and talking about a past we can’t change, but showing a clear and impossible to miss pattern.
You say yourself that moving away from car centric mobility was possible 50 years ago and that hydropower was (yes, not for every country because it’s dependent on geography) was possible. And what did most countries do instead? They went hard for more burning of fossil fuels instead and at immense costs, too. Because lobbyists told them that the transition isn’t possible. And if it is, then it’s far too expensive. And really needs to be planned slow and meticulous to have any chance of success. And then they did basically nothing.
That is the exact same stuff the exact same lobbyists tell you today and you parrot it.
Sorry, but if you can’t even see it when explicitly pointed that direction, then you are indeed an idiot and part of the problem.
Like I said, you can delve for ages in the past, then get nihilistic and then prevent change in the present. Or you can have a look at reality and see that the energy mix for electricity has changed massively. Fossil fuels (all of them together) stand at 25% of the mix across the EU and also absolute capacities in TWh have substantially decreased. And this is already with renewables compensating for reduced nuclear power plant output (something that can be debated on its own from various directions).
Overall energy beyond electricity is rapidly changing too. We are seeing a big rise in solar power, heat distribution systems in urban areas and a big push for heat exchanger systems running on electricity for home heating. Fossile fuels for heating are phased out in many countries entirely.
Are there lobbyists working against that? Sure. But supporting that transition doesn’t mean one has to demand the entirely polemic and unrealistic position that one should not secure fossil fuels needed even in the most rapid transition scenario. You are talking about slippery slope, yet I have yet to hear a clear word from you want alternative there is to that in the real world without running into a state of emergency with energy shortages.
Ad hominem attacks are not strengthening your case.
I don’t need to strengthen my case. You are -either willfully or stupidly- ignoring the arguments I told you to repeat again and again your propaganda-induced delusion of how a faster transition isn’t possible. That is EXACTLY THE SAME LIE TOLD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS NOW.
Ok, now screaming after ad hominem.
Your argument is that change is perpetually prevented by slippery slope lobbying. Yet that change is happening as we speak (within 4 years for example the share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the EU has decreased from 38% to 28%), even if it needed way too long to get started. You don’t see the contradiction? I was merely stating the fact that remaining demand has to be secured in the short term, you are not even clear about it if you deny that. Even with the most rapid change you don’t just stop using fossil fuels from one month to the next. You can come with all the slippery slope you like but that is simply a reality, unless you favor hard change with energy shutdowns etc.
It remains unclear of what you mean by faster transition. I was never saying that it is impossible to fasten the process. Unless you want to speed up transition to complete fossil fuel independence to “over night” overnight, there is need for continued fossil fuel supply.