Oil companies must go bankrupt to meet paris … Because that is what they are saying. Then all the pensions and retirement accounts go BK. then hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs. Then everything …I mean everything becomes more expensive and scarce because everything …I mean everything is either made from FFs or depends on them to exist.
Either the entire world economy is redone in a smart and managed way or it will collapse in the worst way.
No, I’m afraid it’s the other way around. WE need to cut our oil CONSUMPTION by 100% by as early as 2030. The oil companies at this point are just like drug dealers and pornographers. Nobody seems to like them, but they stay in business anyway because their are enough customers to keep them profitable. To expect the oil companies to change voluntarily doesn’t even qualify as futile. No, it is we who must change. It is we who need to say no.
And at the end of the day it is we, the majority, that have to save the planet. Looking to our current leadership class and our corporate construct for a solution is the worst kind of self delusional behavior. If I thought the bad and the dumb people outnumbered the good, I would just give up. I’m not ready to do that just yet. Yes, we can save mankind, but not without the suffering and sacrifice that will accompany the coming pestilence. We survived the ice ages. We survived the Black Plague. We can survive global warming.
The entire world economy and human overpopulation load is based on a biosphere-plundering grid that includes fossil fuels.
We’ve built ourselves into a classic overshoot trap and there’s no way to build ourselves out of it. Even so-called renewables (wind, solar, etc.) harm the biosphere, and can’t take the place of petroleum, especially since petroleum is used to make plastics, etc.
No form of geoengineering or other technoutopian bullshit will work either.
Yes, we should take over the fossil fuel industries and make them as ecologically-safe as possible.
But in the long-run, as long as human population continues to climb and every new person born is supported by the technoindustrial grid, anthropogenic mass extinction will be complete by 2060-70 at the latest. The following scenario is accurate:
It will collapse. Capitalism is the crisis, and it’s going to die. Humans will find another way to relate to the planet and each other, or they will go with it.
Capitalism is bad, but it’s not the cause of anthropogenic mass extinction. Human population growth is. Humans are destroyers of the biosphere and innocent animals wherever they go, and have been that way since we first evolved, long before capitalism ever existed. Here’s a scientifically accurate explanation that shows that the human war against Nature way pre-dates capitalism:
For example, the first arrival of humans at any oceanic island in any era with no previous human inhabitants has always precipitated a mass extinction in the island biota. Well-known victims include New Zealand’s moas, Madagascar’s giant lemurs, and scores of bird species on Hawaii and other tropical Pacific islands. Late-Pleistocene or Holocene extinctions of large mammals after the first arrival of humans in North America, South America and Australia may also have been caused by humans. Hence human-caused mass extinction is not a hypothesis for the future but an event that has been underway for thousands of years. As regards the future, consideration of the main mechanisms of human-caused extinctions (overhunting, effects of introduced species, habitat destruction, and secondary ripple effects) indicates that the rate of extinction is accelerating. The basic reason is that there are now more humans than ever before, armed with more potent destructive technology, and encroaching on the world’s most species-rich habitats: the continental tropical rainforests.
I’m kinda thinking the future tense is past its due date. It is collapsing.
This is a good point and you have supported it well. I want to add that the scientific establishment of the Anthropocene in formal, geological timelines required an answer to the question, “When did the Anthropocene start?” The answer came out to be, “The Anthropocene began after WWII.” Why? Because, after considering carefully everything you’ve presented in your comment and more, that is when the “Great Acceleration” occurred. The Great Acceleration was spurred by the post WWII capitalist prosperity of the American economy and its “Baby Boom.” I add this note to support and expand your comment, “capitalism is bad.”
My comment is largely based on recently reading Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System, by Ian Angus (2016). The first 100 pages or so provide an excellent primer on the subject for those who are interested. It’s also useful for clarity when the topic of the Anthropocene arises in discussions of climate change. For example, Naomi Klein, as one of the leading public voices regarding climate change, seems to see red whenever the Anthropocene is mentioned because, in her view, it distributes blame to all humans, regardless of their position in the capitalist food chain (if I may), when in fact it is fossil fueled, wealthy economies that are to blame. Careful consideration shows that, while capitalism alone is not the sole driver of the Sixth Extinction–indeed there are species level drivers, especially over-population–post-WWII capitalism is such an important inflection point that it marks the start of the Anthropocene.
My budget doesn’t include an electric car or even an exchange for a car with better gas millage. Instead we will treat transportation like eating out.
Do as much of it as we can afford. We don’t drive much now as it is. Combine errands with appointments or grocery shopping as we have been doing.
Which means we stay at home a lot, and watch others do their daily zipping up and down the street.
This will be a true test of which sector is of more ultimate value to society: the private or the public.
Good luck to those politicians willing and able to resist the richest industry in the history of money.
America, giving away manufacturing is now second place. We are drilling and export selling oil, refined products and compressed natural gas to just have some income to the nation.
We still produce 25% of the world’s global warmings.
If we choose to reduce to 2.5%, we can by rationing fuel for automobiles, pick up trucks. Railroads will haul the loads traveling 250 miles or more. Trucks for 250 miles or less.
This will cause families to live closer to work. Public transportation in Chicago, for example, actually had slightly lower ridership the past two years. Some rural area will become totally without citizens.
The transition will be very difficult because we love to drive everywhere. The TV auto ads promote family adventure, speed, doing speed donuts, power and safety. I am not proposing that we go electric vehicles all the way, but battery technology will improve thru the years., .
If we also ration the number of vehicles a family may own or rent, this may also assist climate improvements. One neighbor, husband and wife, have five vehicles! Two are in the driveway and three are in the back, fenced in yard.
Japan economy and korea’s will take that hit.
Quit giving them billions in taxpayer subsidies.
This is a step froward - maybe a big one. Marion King Hubbert and John Kenneth Galbraith would approve I think - in the spirit of ‘whatever works’.
We need one moderate to big size oil company to take the lead and cut their production by the recommended amount, which apparently varies company to company.
I agree with the comments re ‘capitalism is not the sole problem’, and The Anthropocene is real - and really actually formalizing it will be another step in avoiding the worst.
@EdsNote: I’ve read a couple of books on The Anthropocene - thanks for another !
“Oil and gas companies’ investments are taking the world down a catastrophic pathway that threatens the planet and the global economy,” said Fugere. “We are already seeing destructive impacts worldwide—and the world has only warmed one degree. To right the ship and set us on a sustainable course, investors must demand these companies set Paris-aligned targets and begin strategically reducing investments in oil and gas projects,” Fugere added. “This is a necessary step on the pathway toward preserving a livable planet.”
Tell self-driving car jokes too ridiculous to consider seriously, folks, please, take my car, please. Reconsider combustible hydrogen via PHEV ICE drivetrain internal combustion engine tech as indispensable rather than transitional. We drive too much, too far for too many purposes.
We fly to too many exotic getaways and business/vacation trips. Few of us fully visit our own states. Statewide tourism as a goal would reduce emissions yet serve local travel needs. Amtrak goes through my West Coast town North & South & NorthEast but not SouthWest, a line that hasn’t run daily passenger-rail since 1997, but could be rebuilt. Two daily PDX to SLC Talgo Trainsets at 80mph,
New Amtrak Pioneer beginning service in 2022.
All these plans have no sense of urgency! Have you noticed that this, like so many other, “musts” and “bold plans” are always extended way into the future.
Example: $15 per hour MAY be a living wage NOW–though still too low IMO–will be a joke when it kicks in after the years go by and the federal minimum kicks in.
That is just one example, bu you get the point…
A good argument for not exporting fossil fuels:
Gasoline, diesel supply systems now in place, are needed for supply shortages. Cleaner burning methane should remain the better choice for domestic uses rather than export.
“Oil and gas companies’ investments are taking the world down a catastrophic pathway that threatens the planet and the global economy.” But how about the complacent climate committee I am on. They have no idea what the TIPPING POINT is. They have no idea why the glaciers calving is the climate catastrophe TIPPING POINT. If glacier calving was understood the majority would understand the collapse of the environment as we know it.
So many of us are finding we are victims of cult run businesses and the prosperity gospel. We can not deprogram. We are superstitious (Armageddon) but not good stewards of the earth. Wake up everybody time to start a new day. No more backward thinking time for thinking ahead. That exotic trip you are programmed to take WILL contribute to the climate catastrophe.
The current bass-ackward approach of trying to implement financial incentives to slow or reduce the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels will face unending opposition, creation of loopholes, take forever, and NEVER be successful. Impose - militarily if necessary - an immediate (within 30 days) 5% reduction in extraction, with an additional 5% within one year. Skyrocketing prices will accelerate innovative solutions.
We cannot place our hope in creating a new social consciousness resulting in less carbon consumption. We’re out of time. Just cut the carbon flow, cut the crap, and things will begin to naturally fall into place.
Unfortunately, this report appears as delusional as the behavior it criticizes.
35%? 2040? Extremely optimistic working assumptions.
Extinctions happen all the time. It is part of the evolutionary process. When a new species arrives in an ecosystem, other species are always displaced. Of course humans would have cause extinctions wherever they settled, the same as any other animal. However, the extinction rate of plants for example is now estimated at 500 times what it was in the pre-industrial era. That’s capitalism, my friend.