I don't appreciate your straw man attack. I honestly don't recall ever hearing anyone argue that we should abandon fossil fuels outright. Instead what I hear from most people is a desire to increase research into alternative energy sources and evolve from fossil fuels to something new and better.
Keep in mind this energy transition has occurred before, back in the 16th century. The UK used to depend on wood for its energy. The US led in adopting coal, which was used only marginally for thousands of years. Coal was dirty, it stank, required new technologies to collect and distribute, while wood was cheap and plentiful. As it turns out coal was fundamental to the industrial revolution, the US as a leader in coal developed new industries and led in industrialization and leap frogged Britain.
I see human kind at the same crossroads, but with bigger stakes. Do we want to stick with fossil fuels until we potentially destroy our climate or can we discover new sources that will potentially introduce a new energy revolution, and who do we want leading this new energy revolution?
> I honestly don't recall ever hearing anyone argue that we should abandon fossil fuels outright.
Bill McKibben (founder and leader of 350.org) endorses a 95% ban on fossil fuels. He says that oil companies are "Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization."
> Keep in mind this energy transition has occurred before, back in the 16th century. The UK used to depend on wood for its energy. The US led in adopting coal, which was used only marginally for thousands of years. Coal was dirty, it stank, required new technologies to collect and distribute, while wood was cheap and plentiful. As it turns out coal was fundamental to the industrial revolution, the US as a leader in coal developed new industries and led in industrialization and leap frogged Britain.
I realise it's tangential to the article, but where on earth did you learn your history of the industrial revolution [0]? Presumably in the USA?
Keep in mind this energy transition has occurred before, back in the 16th century. The UK used to depend on wood for its energy. The US led in adopting coal, which was used only marginally for thousands of years. Coal was dirty, it stank, required new technologies to collect and distribute, while wood was cheap and plentiful. As it turns out coal was fundamental to the industrial revolution, the US as a leader in coal developed new industries and led in industrialization and leap frogged Britain.
I see human kind at the same crossroads, but with bigger stakes. Do we want to stick with fossil fuels until we potentially destroy our climate or can we discover new sources that will potentially introduce a new energy revolution, and who do we want leading this new energy revolution?