Topic: Is fossil fuels REALLY running out quickly, or do we still have time? - page 4. (Read 513 times)

The effect of global warming is having a devastating consequence on the environment of some countries. There has been an increase in natural disasters such as floods and drought. Most governments are also signatories to some treaties that promote the diversification of fossil fuels to renewable energy. But as you rightly pointed out this drive to green energy is championed by mainly rich and developed countries. I don't think my country will fully stop the use of fossil fuel-powered cars in the next fifty years.


This is the problem with electric power, it is expensive. Other sources of power are cheaper in my area than electricity. In some places in my area, one can easily have access to firewood or kerosene to power a stove to cook. But cooking with electric gas is for the rich. This is why I said it will take time before many countries will embrace environmentally friendly sources of energy. Regarding the supply of these fossil fuels, they are boundless and cannot be quantified. Crude and natural games are in abundance that could last the world more centuries.

fossil fuels running out will be the end of OPEC countries including Russia. they still can dig deeper to get more natural gas down there. there are more in the Middle East, they have been the source of it since time.

conspiracy theories do have a point. but i think WEF is not just controlling people, but maybe they wanna see the economy of OPEC countries fall too. if all countries don't use oil and just rely on solar and wind, they'd be out of the picture. but this is going to be a terrible transition for countries going into renewable energy.

stand in your street when it rains
notice the rain does not land on soil, but on concrete/asphalt
notice it does get given time to evaporate, but runs off into drains and sewers and then into the sea

Depends on what you mean as 'quickly', according to this article on Stanford fossil fuel will be run out in about half a century, and for me that's very quick. If we talk about the most mainstream topic related to the fossil fuel, then it is a vehicle, I know that industry and manufactory consume a lot of fuel but I guess people can relate more to the car topic. Electric car were invented in early 1800's but it needs more than a decade to be pushed to public in about late 1980's /early 1990s, their improvement has been stagnant and fall far behind combustion engine car, until Lithium battery invented in 2003, and up until know, electric car is barely mainstream, it still cost a lot more with less support from 3rd party mechanic, and in some place very few charging place. If we compare those timeline with the time we have left to replace fossil fuel completely, then there might be a time when we are forced to use electric car, but it's not fully comfortable yet.

I wouldn't talk about any consipracy theory, because if take that into account, then there would be an infinity of ifs.

That is government policy and that is normal, but in general natural resources still exist and are available. What needs to be taken into account is that if they are used a lot, it can cause price increases and it is very possible that there will be conflicts over the desired resources.

In my opinion, this is one of the impacts of technology that continues to develop, where the transition to renewable energy such as electricity and LPG is considered a positive step which will indirectly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and be sustainable.


Yes. and this is natural, we need a relevant reason why this happened, but if we look at the journey and the air temperature, it really points to this.

carbon emissions and environment is the advert to poke at peoples hearts and minds to get motivated to act..
reducing the demand on reserves is the underlying reason

we(im from the uk) actually had more smog and carbon in the air pre 1900. london and the UK as with most countries during the victorian/industrial era/wild west days had a problem with smog long before the carbon agenda was a thing.. and we cleaned our act up long before carbon agenda was a thing

410parts per million in air quality is not a crisis amount heck if you actually done proper air compositions of different days depending on water (dry or wet rainy day) the carbon count swings alot more then the small amount they make us fear.
410-425 is not a threat.
its just a reason to make us fear something we do not understand due to lack of clarity, to motivate us into taxations and inflation thinking its all for the good of the environment, whilst that same money fund profiting businesses to diversify away from a dwindling supply reserve, for THEIR corporate preservation

---

another resource crisis is the fresh water crisis
yes they advertise droughts. but they do not reveal the cause

instead of rain falling on soil land and irrigating land to grow. sequestering both water* and carbon.. we humans have built cities and reservoirs to capture said water before it gets to soak into the land

so now most of the "water cycle" funnels through pipes we made, avoiding nature and just going through our systems
when people use too much water and it just goes through sewers out to sea. it avoids nature.

thus soil does not get water from natural streams, rivers due to dams. water doesnt flow over land. due to utility pipes

we see reservoirs empty due to over use and the lack of soil soak which means less landmass able to offer evaporation to complete the cycle again

*lack of rain = lack of cooling of the air. lack of clouds to shade us from the sun..
yep lack of cloud has more 'global warming' impact than the misleading carbon per million count, (it doesnt count air content accurately based on real dry/wet days. but changes numbers to uniform the numbers as if everydays was dry day(fudging the numbers))

Governments that advocate for the transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy sources are often driven by the objective of reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change. The shift away from conventional fuels is not only about the availability of resources but also involves embracing more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices. For example, in our locality, our local government agencies, specifically the City Environment and Natural Resources and the City Bicycle Board, encourage us to use electric bikes, which I have been using for almost two years now. However, when it comes to cooking, I still use gas because electricity is expensive in our area, possibly due to being in a tropical region.

hydro carbons will still have a niche need  for the next 500 years
however reserves of fossil hydrocarbons at current rate of depletion only have 50 years reserves
so the burning/refining needs to come down by 95% to leave a legacy to future generations

so yes the elites do want to preserve the resources
but to promote reserve shortage as a 'demand' crisis for future generations was not good enough, so making it a 'health-eco' global problem of human survival in this century, became the promotion


thus when de carbonising the western world via renewables. they then do not want to give the middle eastern/developing countries their resource, lands(where reserves are) back to them for them to deplete the reserves. in short they dont want africa/india middle east just burning reserves if the west stop buying as much

I think this is a reach. The elite does not need a clamp down on renewable sources of energy to store unrenewable ones. I would say there is a bit of an urgency to move to renewable sources and it's mostly seen in progressive nations that want to be ahead of the curve. Many of the nations that have lots of energy sources are not moving the renewable energy anytime soon.

My personal opinion on whether fossil fuels are running out or if it is exaggerated by governments & campaigners is that it is exaggerated. Fossil fuel reserves are finite & will eventually be depleted but the rate at which this occurs is influenced by various things. The environmental impact of fossil fuels & the need to transition to cleaner energy sources is quite important. The overall consensus is that diversifying our energy mix & reducing reliance on fossil fuels is crucial for a sustainable future but I do think that the whole ESG & green movement do exaggerate & FUD about fossil fuels.

The government, at least in my country, has been aggressively promoting the shift from gasoline vehicles to electric vehicles, LPG stoves to electric stoves, and so on. Anything without electricity as the power source is now labeled as "bad." I find it frustrating for two reasons: firstly, it requires more money to buy new items, and secondly, I'm skeptical that the new items will perform as well as my old ones. Electric stoves lack satisfaction, and electric vehicles may struggle with long distances, among other concerns.

Some conspiracy theories suggest that this is a strategy by organizations like the WEF to control us. What are your thoughts? Is there a genuine and urgent need to embrace renewable energy, or is it merely a directive for the masses, giving time for the elite to stockpile valuable resources? I don't think it's about carbon emission though, since the electricity used is from coal generators... "They" just don't want us to use LPG & gasoline.