you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (9 children)

I just argued against this in another thread, not because I don't want it to be true but because I think this is premature.

The counter example I'm going to give is the emissions drop during COVID shutdowns and the lack of meaningful changes following supply disruptions.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 hours ago

    Here is the thing, during the Russia-Ukraine war, we saw a sudden spike in renewable energy usage. To the point that many scientists were baffled. They went from extremely doomed gloom to "maybe there is a chance". Many of them had given up hope we could ever switch to renewables fast enough.

    Now this has happened, and it makes the oil issues with Russia/Ukraine look like nothing. We will see a shift to renewable technology the likes of which we have never seen on the planet, not because people want to, but because the material conditions mean that it must be done.

    And here the thing, the want is there. I think more people want to be less dependent on oil but waves hand at everything working against that. Now we have a legitimate material reason to go full throttle in that direction?

    The end of oil was inevitable one way or another. And it seems like the timeline was speed up a lot. The chances to curb this seem to have passed. Even if a deal was made tomorrow it would still take time to fix the oil issue. And the prices will never go back down to what they were. And we all know Iran will force a toll on the strait.

  • source
  • parent
  • Covid was a temporary pause in consumption but we stockpiled reserves and had the largest reserves ever to burn through for a rapid recovery.

    This case is the opposite. We have no reserves, they have been fully depleted. There is nothing to burn through for a recovery

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

    If they don't stop, eventually the industries will move towards cheaper options

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 hours ago (5 children)

    Yes, this will presumably be the largest driver though still mixed (you can't run a military on renewable power)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    Why, because we can’t make sufficient explosions without fossil fuels? Or is it a logistics thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago

    When you're at war you can't exactly bring power lines with you, nor do you want to be sitting there waiting ~10 minutes for the tank to fast charge while the enemy is shooting at you and you need that tank NOW.

    Also apparently liquid fuels are extremely energy dense.

  • source
  • parent