[swader999]

The math to replace fossil fuels is staggering. Look at this analysis of what it would take to replace existing fossil fuel with net zero carbon alternatives by 2050 (11000 days from now). Here's the conclusions:

So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero...

Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.

[tyfon]

This analysis assumes that we can continue on the current consumption spree and growth in energy usage as before.

It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to the current western lifestyle.

We need to find better ways of moving around, buy less stuff and produce food in better ways.

[falcolas]

> It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to the current western lifestyle.

I feel quite confident in saying “that will never happen.”

If you want to avoid a mass revolution from the people, you can’t take away quality of life.

[tyfon]

The taking of quality of life is a given anyway, there simply is not enough stuff to satisfy everyone. There are already large parts of the population in the US living in poverty and the middle class is being decimated.

[pas]

And that's basically why any plan that doesn't start with better (drastically less GHG) cement and steel manufacturing is not very insightful.

Furthermore the fact that we aren't building 10 test fusion reactors all around the planet shows how less people are aware of the problem, and how little effort and resources are we willing to allocate toward really averting it.

[einpoklum]

Skewed analysis. It assumes:

1. No energy savings.

2. No carbon sequestration.

Now, I'm no expert on either of these, but both are of extreme importance to achieving emission reduction goals, and there is huge potential for such reductions.

[swader999]

Sue but even if those two factors cut the problem in half (they won't) we still can't build at this lower rate. Oil consumption and electrical needs are projected to rise during the next thirty years.

[Glench]

At least for energy use it turns out that the problem is cut in half!

https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d...

“The mere act of electrification has a powerful effect on efficiency: electrifying the US economy from carbon free sources will reduce the amount of energy needed by more than half.”

[einpoklum]

They will cut the problem by much more than a half.