[leeroyjenkins11]

How many billions of lives have been saved by fossil fuels and technology though? From starvation, from extreme weather events, from exposure to heat and cold?

Would we be here if not for modernization and fossil fuels? If we stopped in the 60s, would other nations have done the same? Or would they have advanced to dominance?

[suprjami]

Burn down your house. Yeah, your house is gone, but look how warm you are today!

Fossil fuels are not the only form of energy. We could have put decades of technological effort into wind and solar and battery and waves and all the other options. We'd be so much further forward than we are today. Instead the industry just lobbied and lied.

[mardifoufs]

At the time when this research happened, so in the 1970 - 80s? Yes, they were the only viable form of energy for almost everything. Suggesting that we should've ditched fossil fuels in the 70s and 80s is a bit asinine and would've resulted in immense loss of lives, especially in less developed areas of the world. There weren't really any other alternatives. Electrification is only possible due to recent advancement in (battery, PV, electronics) technology. Your analogy does not make sense because abandoning fossil fuels back then was closer to the "house burning" move.

(Yes, nuclear existed. But only in some countries, and it could only cover some parts of energy usage).

[suprjami]

Please quote the sentence where I allegedly said to drop fossil fuels in the 70s with no viable replacement, plunging the world into a dark age. I didn't say that.

Yes, fossil fuels do seem to be an unavoidable evil on the path to technological advancement.

However, the point is: There were no viable alternatives for the last 50 years because the fossil fuel industry did everything in their power to cover up the impending disaster and instead focused all efforts on lobbying to maintain their profits.

Imagine if Exxon had made their findings public in 1973 and had instead lobbied for renewables and moving away from fossil fuels. We'd be 50 years ahead of our current energy technology. We'd have a lot more options for generation and storage with a lot more density.

The "recent advancements" are only recent because we've pissed the last 50 years against the wall so some asshole billionaires could afford more yachts.

"What if someone else just kept polluting" isn't an argument. Fighting climate change is becoming a political necessity. The world has almost internationally eradicated many undesirable things like mass slavery and chemical weapons. These are also political necessities to run a successful country.

In another 100 years, the idea of a country mass-burning fossil fuels will be akin to adding a Swastika to their national flag while adopting foreign policy of black slavery. Sure, they can try it, but it would be very politically and financially unpopular, and if they get too forceful then some superpower will interfere and stop them.

We could be 50 years closer to that goal. But we aren't. And that's due to the fossil fuel industry's intentional deception of the entire world.

[MandieD]

Fun little anecdote:

Jimmy Carter had solar panels put on the roof of the White House. Ronald Reagan had them removed.

Hypothetical that makes me want to cry for all the wasted time and cumulative life years:

What if Reagan had kept them instead, even promoting a nascent American PV industry in the 80s?