[llsf]

As of now, fossil fuel is crucial for national security. The whole economy runs on fossil fuel.

But fossil fuel has 2 main drawbacks:

1. Contribute to global warming

2. It takes millions of years to produce, and few days to consume (aka limited resource)

So, we need to adapt the economy to those 2 drawbacks. Even if one thinks that global warming is not an issue, then the fact that it is a limited resource is going to eventually kick in (coal, oil and gas peak).

In the current economy, any drastic change of fossil fuel price would end in chaos. That is the threat. The sooner we minimize our dependance on fossil fuel, the better.

In some industries, we would need fossil fuels for a long time as it is difficult to replace them (e.g. fertilizers, plastics). in some other industries (transportation, heating), we can substitute fossile fuels with other energies (e.g electricity generated using renewable or nuclear).

So, yes it is a matter of national security, and that is why we need to adapt our economy to use less fossil fuel. And obviously we need to extract fossil fuel, as long as we can, during that transition.

[ok_dad]

National security or global security just means it’s necessary to maintain the status quo. If needed, in sure we could get off oil in a matter of a decade or less, but it’s just easier to use oil and not work so hard to get off of it. You don’t have to explain how we’re dependent on oil to me, anyways, dependencies being a national security threat is a failure of political leadership for decades and decades now. We should have been off oil in the 80s or 90s after the crisis in the 70s, but instead we just paid off powerful men in the Middle East with weapons and kicked the can.

[llsf]

> If needed, in sure we could get off oil in a matter of a decade or less...

I would be less optimistic as 80% of the energy used is fossil fuel (source: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...).

Everything that we wear (plastic) or eat (fertilizers, and farming, trucking) comes from fossil fuel. Oil is everywhere. It is going to take a while to withdraw from our addiction.

> We should have been off oil in the 80s or 90s after the crisis in the 70s...

Oil is a fr(e)aking miracle. It is virtually free (just drill), it is energy dense, easy to transport, it makes fertilizers which allowed to fed the planet with less fields, it makes plastic, etc.

The countries fortunate enough to have some in their underground, have a natural printing money machine.

But, it is a limited resource, and using it at the scale we have been doing in the past 100 years, is impacting the environment.

> but instead we just paid off powerful men in the Middle East with weapons and kicked the can.

I agree that we kept kicking the can. But fortunately (or unfortunately if we are not prepared) it will eventually come to an end. It takes million of years to produce oil, and we consume it faster and faster. There will a time, where we would not find the easy oil, and it would become more and more expensive to find. If we are not prepared, then chaos will follow (wars as the last countries that have access to oil will keep it for them, economies will collapse as worldwide trade will break, etc.)

Clearly the past 100 years have been golden thanks to oil. We need to build a future where oil would be less abundant and more expensive.

[soco]

It's only a pity that most policies fall under either one or the other extreme. You suggest keeping fossils and further develop renewals until they can safely take over? Well this exact position will get most hate from both sides, thus being also the least likely to be implemented - regardless how logic and realistic it might be.

[llsf]

It might not be voluntary decided, but it is more a less happening. renewable is used more and more, and nuclear is getting more interest lately.

Lots of countries are putting incentives to electrify their economy, which is a necessary first step to later switch to renewable and nuclear (and ditch coal or gas).