Australian conservatives’ dismissal of the climate crisis was a huge error. Keir Starmer should make the most of this moment, says political strategist John McTernan
Fossil fuels are finite but they’re not in any danger of running out in the near future. They’re not limited enough to use that as a reason to stop using them. Plus there are corn-derived biofuels and so on, which aren’t much better for the environment when burned.
So yes - depending on who you ask and what constraints you apply, you could be looking at a couple of hundred years for some fossil fuels; actually running out is some way off yet.
The shorter term worry for me is climate change; based on my reading and the IPCC in particular I’m of the view that the changes are down to us and our activities in terms of CO2 production, pollution and deforestation.
Would you be in favour of finding ways of reducing their use (i.e. not right down to zero in 10 years but more of a gradual organic decline)?
No, we shouldn’t wait for an organic decline. We need to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The faster we do it, the more chance we have of moderating the hell that has already been unleashed on future generations.
My point is that the finite nature of fossil fuels isn’t a persuasive argument to stop using them, because the reality is that we have plenty.
Fossil fuels are finite but they’re not in any danger of running out in the near future. They’re not limited enough to use that as a reason to stop using them. Plus there are corn-derived biofuels and so on, which aren’t much better for the environment when burned.
So yes - depending on who you ask and what constraints you apply, you could be looking at a couple of hundred years for some fossil fuels; actually running out is some way off yet.
The shorter term worry for me is climate change; based on my reading and the IPCC in particular I’m of the view that the changes are down to us and our activities in terms of CO2 production, pollution and deforestation.
Would you be in favour of finding ways of reducing their use (i.e. not right down to zero in 10 years but more of a gradual organic decline)?
No, we shouldn’t wait for an organic decline. We need to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The faster we do it, the more chance we have of moderating the hell that has already been unleashed on future generations.
My point is that the finite nature of fossil fuels isn’t a persuasive argument to stop using them, because the reality is that we have plenty.
Point taken; the climate emergency is the stronger argument. Thank you.
My perspective is we need this done. Either that or we’re heading towards Arrakis.