Maybe renewable technology (AND GLOBAL COMMON SENSE) will save us. Maybe not. The politics will ultimately decide. Unlike the scenario described above by Elroch, I sure hope we don't go through a political process preceded by "global climate collapse."
That would be UGLY.
Maybe renewable technology will save us. Maybe not. The politics will decide.
It certainly won't save us from some of the harmful effects of warming.
True: we have had some harmful warming and more is inevitable. It's a matter of limitation.
It's a question of how much harm we want to put ourselves through. Phasing fossil fuels out now would at least give us a chance to mitigate the worst effects. But you are right that not enough leadership is being shown and not enough is being done fast enough to prevent some significant future problems.
At present there is a massive subsidy of fossil fuels across the world, by costing health effects from pollution and long term environmental damage to the world at zero. In truth these are worth around 100 trillion dollars in total and no-one is paying the bill.
It is literally the same as if a company could deal with nuclear waste by dispersing it in the atmosphere and not be penalised for doing so.
It is literally the same as if a company could deal with nuclear waste by dispersing it in the atmosphere and not be penalised for doing so.
Yes, the costs of using all of our fossil fuels will be enormous when all the consequences are factored in.
So 87 is a bit like a smoker who has been told he faces a huge medical bill and bad (very bad - bigly bad in fact 
) health effects but still refuses to give up the cigarettes (apologies for repeatedly using this analogy but it is so apt).
And not only will there be future costs, but fossil fuel companies in the UK have received £6 bn in direct government subsidy in recent years. Strange that they should need that if fossil fuels are so profitable.
Solar and wind combined less than 2% of primary energy, most of the so called renewable contribution from combustible renewable, adding more emissions.
Renewables provided over 25% of UK electricity in 2015. And biogas is carbon neutral so it is incorrect to say it produces more emissions. And anyway, since when have you cared about emissions?
No alternate choice given by ww.
What are you offering Asia in lieu of their 90% energy requirements gained from fossil.
I am saying the infrastructure needs to be built to replace fossil fuels - it will take time and money but then fossil fuels also required the same start up investment to get going.
Solar and wind combined less than 2% of primary energy, most of the so called renewable contribution from combustible renewable, adding more emissions.
Renewables provided over 25% of UK electricity in 2015. And biogas is carbon neutral so it is incorrect to say it produces more emissions. And anyway, since when have you cared about emissions?
87 does quite often say things that are false and then repeat them many times.
Regarding the future trajectory of renewable energy he has the pathological habit of screaming the present statistics (while ignoring the hints given by countries that are ahead of the global curve - pretty much all of Europe) as if they mattered more than what all authorities agree will be MUCH greater contributions from renewables in coming decades (including rather conservative organisations such as the IEA and EIA).
I find it difficult to comprehend that someone can be so blinkered that they do not understand the significance of more than 50% of new generation capacity globally being renewable these days.
These systems don't get replaced every year, they get replaced every few decades, and that is the time scale for radical change.
Another pathological point of view is being in denial of the harm caused by current practice. There are no authorities of which I am aware that deny that well over 10% of deaths these days are the result of air pollution. But there are people who deny this. Why? They don't have a scientific basis It's a matter of picking your beliefs to suit your wishes, I suppose. The same goes for the harmful effects of global warming, occurring on globally on a longer time scale. Those who deny this are just in unjustifiable denial of what is known and accepted.
@Elroch - yes and as well as deaths there is the quality of life of those not terminally affected. I suspect that this is why China is wanting to clean up its act - not so much to prevent co2 emissions but to provide breathable air for its people.
More evidence that things are changing slowly....Perhaps 87 ought to get his shares out of fossil fuels before it's too late 
I know how bad it can be. It tastes and smells acrid. The only other place I can recall anything approaching it was in Athens a few decades back, but the observable character of the pollution was different. In Athens it was mostly vehicle fumes, in Chinese cities a lot of it is fumes from coal, and I think it is the SO2 you notice most.
In recent years, they have finally started to try to fix the problem and are making some progress with a long way to go.
Here's a reasonable argument for a carbon tax by the EU, that (probably) will not get sufficient political support --
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-steel-tariffs-climate-friendly-response-by-barbara-unmuessig-and-michael-kellner-2018-06
Page 1 elro name calls around fossil fuel use, 400 pages on elro still name calling. Asked for an alternate energy source the dummy replies maybe something to fit the bill in a few decades time.
See you later, much later.
So now you are complaining that change is not happening fast enough when it is people like you ( or rather policymakers with your attitude - usually because they stand to line their own pockets) who are holding back the inevitable change. Oh the irony.
@Coffee - as long as you're ok that's all that matters. Screw the rest of the human race what do they matter? Great attitude.
By the time global warming's truest, most damaging effects begin to hit us, I'll probably be long dead so it's really not that big of an issue. Bigger feesh to fry.
Displaying an all American avatar Demonstrating what's all wrong with the USA.
Page 1 elro name calls around fossil fuel use, 400 pages on elro still name calling. Asked for an alternate energy source the dummy replies maybe something to fit the bill in a few decades time.
So, who is really the dummy here? Could it be the person who both misrepresents AND insults in the same sentence?
The techology exists: there is no "maybe" about this. Better still, it will get even cheaper and perform even better as time passes. Replacing fossil fuel use is a process that will take several decades: that's pragmatic reality, and should be accepted by everyone.
Take wind energy for example: this can produce 20 times the energy it embodies over around 25 years, which is way more than present fossil fuel extraction achieves. This amounts to more than 12% annual return on energy investment, with a very high ceiling on the scale and effectively infinite sustainability. A wise choice. How could any sane person be negative about it?
See you later, much later.
Sounds good to me.
I thought that the biggest HOAX of human history was the Christian belief of Jesus now I see that climate change is now number one of all-time best HOAX `S.
You people sound like you are somewhat educated but not enough by the sounds of it!!
Villages lost in Alaska today. Land lost in Florida,Alabama,and Louisiana. Where will the people living on the plain in Bangladesh go? India's border is closed to them. Maybe China will absorb them. Does Australia want Chinese bases on the Indian Ocean? What are you going to do about it?
And what on Earth can we do about this asshole?
I thought that the biggest HOAX of human history was the Christian belief of Jesus now I see that climate change is now number one of all-time best HOAX `S.
You people sound like you are somewhat educated but not enough by the sounds of it!!
Which part are you having trouble with? Global temperatures are going up. Co2 has been established as the main cause of this. The only people that dispute this are (a) conspiracy theorists - you know - the kind of people who think that aliens are living on Mars because they saw a funny shaped shadow in a photograph and therefore it is proven and NASA is covering it up..... and (b) people who stand to make a lot of money from fossil fuels and therefore would rather not be confronted with the truth.
So which group are you in Michael? Or which of those groups misinformed you?
Also, I'm just interested why you have GM after your name.
By the way, talking of conspiracy theorists, there are apparently a (hopefully small) group of people who think that Australia doesn't exist. I kid you not. Google it.
My point being that once people start having paranoia and refusing to trust experts (in this case - Australians) there is no knowing how far down the rabbit hole you can descend!
Maybe renewable technology will save us. Maybe not. The politics will decide.
It certainly won't save us from some of the harmful effects of warming. It's a question of how much harm we want to put ourselves through. Phasing fossil fuels out now would at least give us a chance to mitigate the worst effects. But you are right that not enough leadership is being shown and not enough is being done fast enough to prevent some significant future problems.