Fossil fuels are dying, but they’re not dead yet
We are in the midst of a generation-long transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Just as cars replaced horses and streaming video ended VCRs, the demise of fossil fuels is underway. Speed is largely determined by technological innovation, price, convenience and reliability. Politics affects the speed of change, but not the fact of change. However, the idea that renewable energy technologies can immediately replace fossil fuels today is incorrect. It’s a tautology: if the technology is here, we’ll all use it. As much as climate activists (and I) might want to see it, we can’t get rid of fossil fuels right away. Our world economy relies on energy to function, and if we remove it, the economy will collapse. Complete and immediate removal of fossil fuels would lead to a global economic depression. Children will starve to death. Economic depression can lead to political instability, which in turn leads to terrorism. The destructive power of terrorism will make us miss rising seas.
Our environmental, economic and political systems are interconnected in a delicate web of relationships and interactions. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on European energy supplies is a real testament to these connections. Some protesters at COP-27, at least those able to break through authoritarian barriers to protest Egypt, want an immediate shift away from fossil fuels. That didn’t happen and shouldn’t happen. Rather than protesting America’s most successful climate president ever, activists may turn away from symbolism and turn to the hard, mundane work of keeping our economy away from fossil fuels. The Biden administration rolled up its sleeves and got to work. Not only has Joe Biden budgeted hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy, but by executive order he required all federal agencies to appoint chief sustainability officers charged with moving the federal government away from fossil fuels. It is not politics that is holding back the transition to renewable energy, but the time and investment required to complete the technological and economic transition. My home and yours are primarily powered by fossil fuels. The shift to fossil fuels has already begun, but the process will take many years to complete.
In New York City, we have begun the decades-long effort mandated by Local Law 97 to decarbonize the city’s built environment. This will require building owners, developers, managers and workers to remove old heating, lighting and cooling systems and install new ones. All of this takes time and effort, and requires financial investment and balancing multiple goals. New York City has a growing number of homeless and underhousing people. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be balanced with the need for affordable housing. We can achieve both, but we don’t want to reduce global warming by raising housing costs and increasing homelessness.
The good news about decarbonization is that more efficient energy systems based on renewable resources will be cheaper in the long run than current inefficient, old and polluting systems. Investments in the development and implementation of new energy systems will be financially rewarded. But the transition may require public subsidies to prevent harm to those who cannot afford the investment capital required to install new technologies. Utilities needed to switch from fossil fuels to renewables may also need subsidies.
These are the real, real problems of reducing global warming. This is a far cry from the ongoing climate change trade show in Egypt. Predictions of impending doom, calls for rich countries to pay developing countries for climate damage, and other messages from the conference all have value in keeping climate change on the media and political agenda. But so did the recent November hurricane that moved along the US East Coast. I’m far less interested in the symbolism of COP-27 than in the actual operation of Local Law 97 and Joe Biden’s (bad name) inflation reduction bill. It’s relatively easy to hang a banner and call for quick change. The work required to build the new energy systems we need is much harder.
A major issue raised at COP 27 is developing countries’ demands for compensation for climate damage caused by developed countries.according to Washington postof Matt Visser, Timothy Pukow and Sarah Kaplan:
“Biden says he will continue to fight for congressional approval He pledged $11 billion to the international community. He and other Democrats also highlighted the reductions their climate and tax proposals could bring, and said they would continue to push for more, despite Republicans in Tuesday’s meeting. midterm elections… the main product of the U.S. delegation in Egypt so far is a new proposal by major charities and companies that Channel private funding to developing countries for clean energy projectsThe group hopes to attract more than $100 billion by the end of the century, but its plans to rely on the voluntary participation of private companies have been questioned. Instead, calls for wealthy nations to raise money by taxing companies are gaining momentum. ”
I understand the value of raising these global environmental justice issues, but they are far removed from political and operational realities. I think they are consumed domestically by diplomats because all they get from rich countries is the tepid and symbolic response they get from the Biden team. More important is Biden’s view that U.S. money to modernize the energy system will improve energy technology and cost-effectiveness in developing countries. We live on a planet of sovereign nation-states. Rich countries take care of their own needs before worrying about the needs of others. Developing countries will develop their economies and build resilience to climate change by attracting private investment. The costs of climate disruption and climate adaptation caused by developed countries will not be paid by rich countries. In a world ruled by self-serving nation-states, I don’t think there is any mechanism to change this outcome.
The urgency of our global environmental sustainability crisis drives some toward symbolic statements of principle, but drives me toward pragmatic, actionable steps. I increasingly see these symbolic events (like COP-27) and all the resources spent on them as a distraction from the real work of saving the planet.When I still Accepting their arguments for raising awareness of environmental issues and getting media attention, I get frustrated when I hear protesters yelling at President Biden who has done more work on these issues than any other in the history of the world More than one elected leader. We need to recognize and support our friends.
The transition to an economy based on renewable resources has already begun, but it will be a long transition in which our planet will warm, our ecosystems will continue to degrade, and people will suffer from this devastation. None of this can be avoided. What we can do is accelerate the transformation and focus on the operational tasks, financial resources and organizational capabilities needed to make this change happen.
The growth of social media and the insularity of the news media have monetized political conflict and polarization. Interest groups raise funds from crises and conflicts. Good news and progress lack drama to attract “clicks” and “eyeballs.” When running for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is not evil. Moderation in pursuit of justice is not virtue.” In our contemporary polarized world, I’m starting to think he’s wrong. Extremism is always a vice, and moderation is always a virtue. Furthermore, listening to those with whom you disagree is necessary if we are to reach the necessary compromises to ensure that the world is safe for diversity. To owners of fossil fuel businesses: Your business is dying. To climate activists who want to spin off and shut down fossil fuel companies: We still need the energy these companies produce. Fossil fuels are dying, but they are not dead yet.
