What is the future of fossil fuels?
One of the many significant issues being discussed at COP 28 focuses on the future of fossil fuels. A number of countries - including the USA - want language in a Dubai Declaration to state that the nations of the world agree to "PHASE OUT" fossil fuels by a specific year (e.g., 2050). Other countries - such as Saudi Arabia and China - want language that states "PHASE DOWN." What do you think? Can the world function effectively beyond the significant use of fossil fuels?
Read this article as a reference. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67599925
I think the specific language used in the fossil fuel declaration is extremely important, and having "phase out" rather than "phase down" emphasizes the actual elimination of a dependence on fossil fuels rather than just trying to cut down on usage. I'm tired of hearing empty promises from countries about how they will reduce their usage by some year decades from now, so I think specifying "out" would really make change in our current usage. The linked article also discussed how the top 50 oil companies were pledging to "almost entirely stop releasing the potently planet-heating gas methane during oil and gas production by 2030" this gives me so much hope since I don't think I will see a complete detachment from oil usage in my lifetime, but the promise of stopping a large amount of pollution makes me think real change can still happen.
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel like totally stopping the use of fossil fuels would result in major changes, some good and some bad. However, I feel like "PHASE DOWN" might be more realistic than totally stopping at a certain year.
ReplyDeleteIf 2050 is indeed the set year, phase down to perhaps a certain high target seems the most reasonable approach at this time. I'm not sure the world can function entirely without fossil fuels without serious, and undoubtedly expensive, change. A switch to nuclear in many countries could have positive effects, especially considering the reactors high safety levels compared to those of the past. However, notably this is a very expensive method of energy production, as it takes enormous funds to construct with considerations for safety included. Considering this cost, will it economically viable for poorer and less developed countries to switch to this type of power? Other methods are obviously available, but wind and solar power are highly dependent on conditions, and could be costly to set up. Furthermore, technology hasn't advanced quite far enough yet for us to store enough energy for later times when these methods would be unavailable. I don't see yet how the world could yet successfully transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy without technological advances like this and improved power gains from these sources. Poorer countries may lack the funds to implement this and unless other countries stepped in to help it would take an even longer time to rid the world of complete fossil fuel dependance. I think this is why phase down is more reasonable then phase out, as it doesn't seem like the world is prepared to be cut off from fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteI think the phrase "phase out" is the better of the two because it implies a complete move away from fossil fuel as our main source of energy. While even "phase down" policies would help reduce the amounts of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases we are emitting into the atmosphere at any given time, I think we need to focus on switching to renewable energy only as soon as possible. I believe that the world can function effectively if we were to phase out fossil fuels completely--maybe not right now, but soon, we already have much of the technology developed to to make the transition. This includes all electric vehicles and homes, solar, wind, and water farms, and more. I found an article that shared some methods we can use to make the switch to renewable energy faster, such as tripling investments in renewables and making renewable energy more available to people globally (not just those in higher classes or certain countries).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy-transition
I can see why countries like Saudi Arabia and China would be reluctant to accept a "phase out" strategy. In Saudi Arabia's case, they are one of the leading exporters of crude oil, (as noted in this document https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/special-topics/OPEC_Revenues_Fact_Sheet, its an interesting read as it shows other country's revenue from oil exports), and in China's case, the expenditures required to overall their entire manufacturing sector and more would be incredibly expensive. While these are important concerns to raise, the health of our planet is more pressing, additionally, there are many benefits to investing in renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels (ex. Increased jobs construction and energy sectors). I think we need to adopt a "phase out" approach, with how uncertain we are with the planet's future, it's irresponsible to treat climate change lightly via a "phase down" approach. I absolutely believe that the world can function without significant reliance on fossil fuels, there are countries who can be useful case studies for other countries trying to rely less heavily on fossil fuels. Take France for example, where around 75% of energy comes from nuclear, 15% comes from hydroelectric, and 9% comes from thermal.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Walker, the ongoing discussions at COP 28 on the future of fossil fuels highlight a critical juncture in global efforts to address climate change. The debate between "PHASE OUT" and "PHASE DOWN" reflects the complexities of transitioning away from fossil fuels while considering various nations' energy needs and economic dependencies.
ReplyDeleteThe article you shared from BBC offers insightful perspectives on the divergent opinions among countries, with the USA advocating for a more immediate "PHASE OUT" approach, and nations like Saudi Arabia and China preferring a gradual "PHASE DOWN" strategy.
This debate raises crucial questions about the feasibility of the world functioning effectively beyond significant fossil fuel use. Achieving a balance between environmental sustainability and the economic realities of different nations is undeniably challenging. It would be interesting to explore the potential compromises or innovative solutions that could emerge from these discussions.
I think it is completely possible to "PHASE OUT" Fossil Fuels as an energy source by 2050 so long as we put forth a combined effort to do so. This requires that countries check up on each other's progress, share technology and support each other in the journey to renewable energy and to stop using fossil fuels. This goal is not possible unless every single country is on board and fully committed to the cause and to transfer our source of energy to renewable rather than fossil.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of phasing out fossil fuels is right in concept, but will take a very long time to put into practice. The vast vast majority of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, and we don't really have a good replacement for them yet. I think that the 2050 estimate may be a little hopeful, but I think for sure by 2075, fossil fuels will be 100% removed from use.
ReplyDeleteI think that we could use both terms as part of a plan to address fossil fuel usage. I do not think that eliminating fossil fuels completely by 2050 is realistic, so "PHASE DOWN" could be used to broadly describe the global goals for 2050. However, this would need to be supported by clear and specific targets for reductions in fossil fuel usage to prevent countries from falsely claiming that they have phased down fossil fuel usage without making substantial change (for example by decreasing per capita fossil fuel usage while increasing total fossil fuel usage, which is possible if the population of a country grows).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, "PHASE OUT" should be included as a target for a later date, say 2075 as Alex suggested, and therefore the "PHASE DOWN" goal would serve as a checkpoint on the road to completely phasing out the use of fossil fuels.
It is worth compromising on the timeline and structure these goals to ensure that most countries agree to these plans and commit to doing their part to work towards eliminating fossil fuel usage. I believe that using both "PHASE DOWN" and "PHASE OUT" as part of a two step, long term plan, achieves this goal of compromise.
I don't feel like the world has created the ability to not rely so heavily on fossil fuels. Lets be honest the most pressing issue in terms of fossil fuel use are cars. Sure we have electric cars, but these electric cars use lithium batteries, these batteries can't be recharged or recycled. What ends happening to these lithium batteries is them being stockpiled. Now i'm not saying that people haven't come up with ways to work around the use of fossil fuels; other power sources that we can begin to work on and fund research with include solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, even human kinetic energy has began to be looked in to. But with about 115 million cars being driven daily I think it is to unreliable to account for all of them to be putto an end till there is a concrete solution. That being said I believe that the idea of "Phasing Down" is more attainable than "Phasing out".
ReplyDeleteThe language choice that Saudi Arabia and China are using to declare their stance on fossils fuels is simply their way of accommodating to the rest of the world without having to commit to actually eliminating the use of fossil fuels. "Phase out" implies eliminating the use of all fossil fuels, which is why countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are hesitant to adopt as they are amongst one of the top contributors to carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Needles to say, the USA also generates a significant amount of carbon emission, however, I believe our country outperforms other countries when it actually comes to "phasing out" fossil fuels. Although it's impossible for the world to agree to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and transition to cleaner, renewable energy sources, I believe that countries who are "phasing out" fossil fuels have the power to influence other countries who are reluctant to eliminate fossil fuels for alternative energy sources if we can convincingly demonstrate excellent economic and social gains as well as environmental benefits from alternative renewable energy sources.
ReplyDeleteI think that the world could survive without fossil fuels, it would just take a world effort, an effort to better ourselves by changing the current status quo. Fossil fuels are obviously not sustainable as we have been seeing the negative effects they do to the world for many years. A PHASE OUT seems like a good idea, but I think the first step would be education as it never hurts and allows all citizens to be aware of what is happening. Fossil fuels effect everyone because they effect the environment which we all live in.
ReplyDeleteThe focus on the reduction or phasing out of fossil fuels is a worthwhile endeavor as it will lower "40% of the world's emissions" to net-zero levels. Though a good idea, it may be difficult to implement due to our heavy reliance on it. In addition, the construction of non-fossil and oil-based energy sources do not always have "net-zero impacts". For example, the manufacturing of Solar Panels produce large amounts of greenhouse gases as well as requires the use of toxic chemicals. Not to say that I believe that we shouldn't try to reduce fossil fuel use, I think that we should just try to not go too fast, and maybe extend past the 2050 deadline if needed.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think the world needs to be careful about pulling the soft rug of fossil fuel energy from under our feet too quickly, the time for vague ideas and empty promises is long past. The language used in this declaration will have a significant impact on how its able to be implemented and enforced. "PHASE DOWN" is simply too vague as a promise to have any real effect. It could mean cut emissions by 50%, which would be a logical conclusion, but bad actors could easily interpret a cut of 5-10% as a "PHASE DOWN." In comparison, "PHASE OUT" is much more solid and leaves little room for loopholes or interpretation. The risk of using "PHASE OUT" is that the goal may become difficult to the point of impossibility for many countries, but I think that drastic measures are needed at this point to stop or even slow the oncoming onslaught of climate change.
ReplyDeleteThe argument between "PHASE DOWN" and "PHASE OUT" illustrates the worldwide difficulty of striking a balance between economic demands and environmental sustainability. A "PHASE DOWN" strategy recognizes the existing reliance on fossil fuels and the necessity for a gradual transition, whereas a full "PHASE OUT" may be overly ambitious. In order to address the climate catastrophe and maintain energy security and economic stability, a compromise must be struck. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels in the future requires innovations in sustainable practices and renewable energy.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
ReplyDeleteI can see that fossil fuel combustion contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, which cause extreme weather, sea level rise, and global warming. A quick switch to renewable energy is thought to be essential for reducing climate change's effects and achieving sustainability objectives. Advocates of a phasedown strategy highlight the energy needs and economic realities of developing countries that heavily depend on fossil fuels. They contend that an abrupt phase-out may cause global energy markets to become unstable and cause economic disruptions. A phased decrease gives these countries time to adjust their economy, create alternate energy sources, and guarantee a steady supply of energy while making the change.
One thing that stood out to me in the linked article is the usage of the word “greenwashing” by climate groups. I agree with their assessment of countries agreeing to increase the usage of renewable energy. The date 2050 is very far away, and research points to us being in a very different (and worse) place by then. I know it’s not realistic to expect countries and everyday people to stop using fossil fuels overnight, but these words don’t outline a plan of how they will get to this point. Just making a promise doesn’t necessarily mean anything will actually happen. Are there any consequences for countries who don’t fulfill the promise they made? How much fossil fuel will still be used by these countries even if they use some forms of renewable energy? This vague language is a hallmark trait of greenwashing, and is useful in misleading people into thinking this issue is under control, when in reality is not nearly as controlled as they think.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.iea.org/reports/emissions-from-oil-and-gas-operations-in-net-zero-transitions
ReplyDeleteWith the fossil fuels industry accounting for 15% of global emissions as stated in the report from the iea it is clear that the fossil fuel industry must begin to move away from producing fossil fuel and turn to cleaner alternatives, but the language used in the dubai declaration may be a decider to if the industry is faced with real pressure to change its ways. The difference between phase out and phase down are significant, as phase out indicates a complete stop from the production of fossile fuels while phase down would meant to only lessen. If we want to see any real changes in the state of our future we must phase out of fossil fuels completly. If we allow such non definitive wording we are allowing the fossil fuel industry wiggle room to continue to polute our world with an excuse, given they only had to lessen their output and not stop. The world can funcion effectively without fossil fuels, we just need to make the changes and make the policies before we can see that.
Yes I definitely agree that the world will eventually be able to function without the use of fossil fuels. But the main problem is how long will it take to get to a point where we don't rely on fossil fuels and how much harm to the environment will be done by that point. My main problem with these goals and agreements of cutting emissions by a certain amount by 2050 for example is that they have too much time and too low of a goal to get through that it is either so achievable that it did not require a huge amount of effort and cutback by them or even if they didn't achieve the goal nothing happened because all they did was agree that they would. A lot of what I've seen is politics and countries making claims that make them look good.
ReplyDeleteI think that the world can mostly phase out fossil fuels for cars, well below current levels to the point that climate change can be reversed. However there are some major areas where fossil fuels are necessary, such as space exploration. Many rockets use RP-1, a highly refined version of kerosene, and much of the new rockets in development use liquified methane, such as the SpaceX Starship. However they contribute almost nothing in comparison to the largest emitters of fossil fuels, so it's not like it matters in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI think the phrasing is of significance as looser wording can lead to less commitment. However, on a technical levle I agree that while it may be possible to dramatically reduce fossil fuels usage, there will be specific usages for it for many years to come. Although I say that, that doesn't mean there usage can't be greatly reduced.
ReplyDelete*level
Delete*their usage
DeleteThis was a very interesting article. I want to know though, if we assume that we will eliminate carbon emissions by 2030 or 2050, would we be able to build and create the infrastructure to make up for all of the fossil fuel use? In addition to this, it seems like the elimination of fossil fuels would disproportionately affect areas of low income or poverty, and I am curious how this would be addressed to make this fair to everyone while making a positive environmental change.
ReplyDeleteBy attempting to not be a bystander and stand up for the cause of reducing fossil fuels, much more investments can be put into research and development of renewable energy so we don’t eventually run out and face an apocalypse. The significant fight to reduce fossil fuels by so many countries by the time of 2030, brings hope for the decrease of non-renewable energy. However, the promises by oil and gas companies fall short of addressing the core issue which is continuing to produce and burn fossil fuels. It is crucial for us to advocate for stronger, more decisive actions that align with the urgent need to limit global temperature rise.
ReplyDeleteIn this context, our role as the future generation should focus on voting for leaders who prioritize climate action, supporting renewable energy initiatives, and pushing for stricter regulations on fossil fuel productions. Raising awareness about the shortcomings of industry promises can amplify our collective voice. The doubtfulness expressed by climate experts about "greenwashing" highlights the need for change. By being part of the community and engaging, we can contribute to the progress of ensuring policies at summits like COP28 give real change.