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

And I really agree with what you say, it seems to be true as you say from the electric vehicle promos which only talk about being environmentally friendly and they don't tell you about the source of electricity used by the vehicle which also comes from fossil fuels used by the engine. power plants and can only produce electricity that can be used for electric vehicles.

I think this is of course an agreement from the parties involved so that electric vehicles can be sold on the market and they still don't think about how to create an update so that one day when fossil fuels are reduced there will be something that can be used. to be able to produce a source of electricity.

A lot of power companies are still burning fossil fuels anyway to produce electricty, so while on paper, electric vehicles and everything may sound green, we are still burning fossil fuels to get the end result: power. It's true that fossil fuels are a limited resource that won't be replaced for millions years, but switching to something that still uses it en masse won't stop nor mitigate the problem.

This move by your government is clearly just favoring the huge electric companies, and they may even be on these companies' payroll to advocate heavily on the use of electric vehicles. I'm not against electric vehicles, but they also deplete natural resources at the same rate as they do with using ICE vehicles. Where do you think those huge batteries come from anyway?

At current production levels, even in Russia, oil reserves will last for 59 years, gas reserves for 103 years, said the head of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, Kozlov.
https://www.rbc.ru/business/11/05/2021/609971fe9a7947e065f63cd4

At the same time, there are few new explored deposits of them, but even those turn out to be quite small, sometimes for a few days of production. Therefore, the transition to alternative energy sources is the call of the time and does not depend on whether we want it or not.

maybe there are still some big oil fuel deposits left that we have yet to discover nobody knows, but the scientist expected that the oil will eventually run out at certain point which I think holds truth because we all know how long it takes for an oil deposit to be formed it takes millions of years if im not mistaken and that alone already such a problem if we always depends on the oil fuel itself.
that is exactly why car companies right now are trying out alternative fuel such as hydrogen as well as electric which we might know that huge chunk of electricity nowaday are actually generated from coal which actually is no different if compared with fossil fuel like oil since it takes time to form but with electricity at least we can slowly switch over to more renewable energy such as wind turbine and so on.
personally I think the steps that government is taking right now is exactly like your opinion to let the citizens change the way they get their energy little by little.

It is very clear that the government is directing our lives from using fossil energy to electrical energy, just imagine how much money the government could earn if all citizens really switched from fossil energy to electrical energy, a monopoly in the energy business is really happening. 
My neighbor a year ago bought a Wuling electric car and he honestly said he was very sorry, the costs he paid were much greater than using a fossil energy car, besides the electricity costs if using an electric stove are also very expensive, the government in this case should pay more attention to their citizens,  There are many people who find it difficult to earn money at the moment, even with government subsidies, it won't be enough to help with the explosion in spending costs that citizens will experience, it's not yet time for developing countries like Indonesia to turn to electrical energy (on a massive scale).

If anyone now continues to be significantly concerned about the decrease in the amount of oil, gas and coal as a traditional source of energy, then I think that with each new year there will be fewer and fewer such people. After all, because of this, our planet is warming up very quickly and soon such people will have completely different and more global problems with the climate and place of residence, and because life in the same place will be problematic.

Humanity already needs to think about completely banning the use of this fossil fuel as traditional forms of energy because this is a sure path to self-destruction. Oil, gas and coal can be used in other industries rather than just burning them, and the benefits from this will also be greater. The only question is whether reason and critical necessity will prevail in this case, or whether we will calmly continue to watch our civilization perish.

Based on my research, it seems like we're less likely to run out of fossil fuels and more likely to see a decline in demand. This is due to advancements in renewable energy technologies, which are becoming increasingly efficient. In the future, renewables might offer more advantages than fossil fuels, especially when considering their long-term environmental impact. While not gone completely, fossil fuels could become a backup energy source.

However, our current renewable energy technologies still have room for improvement and can be expensive.  Perhaps the government's push for electric vehicles is partly motivated by a desire to attract investors to this sector, hoping to drive innovation. To make a significant shift, the percentage of electric vehicle usage will need to increase substantially.

Source

• https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20240215165624-4-514784/terungkap-ini-alasan-pemerintah-jor-joran-kasih-subsidi-mobil-listrik
• https://www.dw.com/en/are-we-running-out-of-oil/video-68509737

Everyone talks about oil, gas, coal... But alternatives can be found to replace them. But here's what everyone forgets... This is FRESH WATER. The same “fossil resource”, but with a really limited volume and an ever-growing demand for it. I think representatives of some countries can already say how much clean drinking water is in demand and how expensive it already is.
It is not without reason that China began the expansion of the southern regions of Russia and actually secured ownership of Lake Baikal. China is already pumping huge amounts of water from Lake Baikal. This problem for the world does not yet have good solutions, because... Desalination of water is an extremely complex and expensive process.

The use of oil, gas and coal as fuel over the past few centuries has led to the horrific consequences of climate change. While some are only wondering how difficult it will be to give up such fuel, we already have changes that in the future will definitely cause chaos, millions of deaths, an increase in the number of destructive natural disasters, tens and hundreds of millions of refugees.

  Thus, on March 11, many temperature records were set throughout Africa. Countries from Cameroon to Mauritius experienced unprecedented heat in March. Temperature records were broken in almost every country from north to south and from west to east.

Cameroon recorded a staggering 45.5°C - a new national record for the hottest day in March. The temperature in Ghana reached +43.8 °C, which also became a national record for March. In Niger, monthly records were broken at almost all monitoring stations: temperatures rose to +45 °C
  Burkina Faso also recorded monthly highs across the country.
Mali recorded its hottest day on record, with temperatures in Bougouni reaching +44°C, while Comoros also recorded its hottest day on record with a temperature of +36.1°C. Hundreds of records were also broken throughout South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
https://vesti-ua.net/novosti/za-rubezhom/amp/246879-takogo-esche-ne-nablyudalos-zhara-v-afrike-pobila-vse-vozmozhnye-rekordy.html

It is no longer even clear whether we have passed the point of no return in terms of the fact that we will soon be recording territories where a person simply cannot exist without special protective suits. I wonder if suicidal people will then burn fossil fuels and continue to warm the planet?

Maybe fossil fuels are starting to run out. It is quite difficult to find new sources of fossil fuels. This creates a huge need for fossil fuels but limited stocks. This encourages these skilled people to find new sources, and electric vehicles are the solution. However, I am of the opinion that this will not change immediately, and it will change little by little. We also have to continue to adapt to today's very fast technological developments, otherwise we might have difficulties in the future.

The issue is more political knowing that they don't have much fossil fuel there compared to the ones in the middle east which is abundant. There are still regions that are not extracted yet and chances of oil being drilled in the South China Sea is possible.

There is no scarcity of these fossil fuels but if the WEF wants those countries in the Middle East to struggle economically, the one to target is the make fossil fuels bad like it affect climate change.

If we continue at our current rate it is estimated that we will run out of fossil fuels. If all the fossil fuels on Earth were to run out or it was impossible to extract the fossil fuels it is estimated that the oil reserves would run out. Realistically we can never run out of oil because given the depth of the Earth's core new wells will be discovered. That said it is very likely that such deep mining practices will become economically unviable.

I think what the officials say is true as it is, if you use too much fossil fuel, it will eventually run out. It is true that fossil fuels can be recovered from new fossils but it requires a process, so as long as we can save it is better to save it, it will be dangerous if really happened

Regardless of whether oil, gas and coal disappear in the coming decades, humanity in any case should urgently switch to other types of fuel, and use fossil fuels in other areas of human activity. What other evidence of their negative impact on the environment needs to be given if over the last century the temperature on our planet has already risen by three degrees, and this winter was the warmest in the entire history of observations. It will soon reach the point where people will move en masse from certain regions due to the impossibility of living there.
This should have been done at least a century ago, and now it’s too late to correct the situation. But for now there are still chances, albeit small.

If I'm not mistaken there is definitely some race against time that's happening when it comes to the depletion of fossil fuels and the current state of the environment. Cause for all I know we definitely have enough to go around at least for a couple hundred years, but at the same time the planet's on its way to irreversible damages at least in the next 30-50 years or so, and that's primarily what concerns a lot of people the most. The reason as well (although honestly it's not that reasonable) is the cost it's gonna take governments across the planet to switch into renewable energy harnessing is going ot be around the hundred trillions, but that's a one-time big-time change that would in turn change the whole energy economy landscape for the better, since it's been stated that the whole industry will save around a quadrillion dollars (don't quote me on this all of these numbers are based on an article I can half-remember from years ago) through harnessing renewable resources. It's all just a matter of stubbornness from the sectors that are most responsible for this that we're still not seeing some major changes.

I'm guessing we'll just have to wait it out until we either die from the pollution and global warming effects, or the changes facilitate themselves and we see the planet revitalize itself. Can't be bothering ourselves with these issues anymore as it's been in the talks for years now yet the people who are required to do something about it, isn't doing shit.

The bottom line is that both natural gas and oil are non-renewable energy sources that cannot be produced anew. And if we use more and more non-renewable energy at the current rate at which the human population has increased, then our future generations will be in danger very soon. And this is the main reason to encourage people to use renewable energy.  It is not a matter of how satisfied we are with the use of renewable energy. I believe that by using renewable energy we can secure the future of our new generations. So I think we should use renewable energy instead of non-renewable energy even if we have time.

The problem is, you don't know if fossil fuels will REALLY run out, let's say, for another 40 years. It's the same as global warming status -- whether it's fact or not, as I've read papers from both sides. I understand that the majority of people accept this fossil fuel scarcity/crisis as a fact, but the majority isn't always right. And when the government makes decisions/rules based on speculation, you can expect the people will unnecessarily suffer.

I think fossil fuels could be depleted and it really is running out as with the discovery of oil as an energy source, we’ve for decades, continuously searched and used up oil deposits for our numerous energy uses.
We’re using these resources a lot faster than they could be naturally replicated so it’s very possible it could be totally depleted someday. And as our energy uses continue to grow exponentially, that day could be sooner than originally anticipated.

I think there’s a genuine need to embrace renewable energy.  I know change could be difficult to accept but isn’t an energy source that could could be renewed much better than one that could be depleted? People would resist change and would invent several theories in a bid to push back on the change being proposed.

I also support that we should gradually switch to electric devices such as electric umbrellas and electric gas stoves because that will help us greatly reduce costs. My family is also one of those who have switched to using electric appliances instead of gasoline and gas and I find it helps us save some costs. But to say it is more environmentally friendly, we need more time to evaluate that. Electric cars are bringing convenience as well as significant fuel savings, but to say that they are more environmentally friendly is not entirely accurate. As far as I know, electric car batteries cannot be recycled and they are made from radioactive materials. Therefore, battery destruction is also an environmental pollution problem that has no effective solution.

This is all about business so we expect something like competition so for now we are in progress to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Whether or not it is some kind of manipulation in this energy sector we really have no choice because it is what governments wanted us to use whatever reason they may have we are clueless about that. If we insist in using old technology and we are living in the future do we really think it is worth the time and effort we spend? We all know technological advancement is inevitable and things around us will become outdated or obsolete so why don't we adopt newer tech and products? For now we are still in a stage wherein we still have choices but in the future fossil fuels might not be an option for us. I might be wrong but who knows?

In my country, the environmental theme is temporarily outside active discussion because the war led to instability of electricity and military equipment can't rely on eco-friendly solutions anyway. But overall, I believe we should strive toward the future of much fewer cars and of way more electric vehicles than other vehicles. As for stoves, electric stoves are also much better for health and safety, and they're easier to clean than gas stoves.
I think there IS a genuine and urgent need to change our relationship with nature and focus on renewable sources. Climate change isn't a problem of the future. It's already happening, and it's leading to a lot of human suffering as well as financial losses. It's true that electricity doesn't always come from eco-friendly sources, but many countries actually mainly rely on clean sources of energy, and at least it's possible to move away from the worst sources, such as coal.

Money makes the world go 'round, and for many places, old school fossil fuels are still big cash cows.  Powerful industries have deep pockets to persuade politicians too and  it aint so simple to trade in oil derricks for solar panels or wind farms overnight when there are massive economic interests at stake. 

Sure, the tech is there for clean energy.  But legacy energy has the deep roots.  Big oil and coal lobby hard to keep their gravy trains running.  Renewables disrupt all that.  And change is messy. 

Maybe with enough public momentum governments can transition without too much pain.  But it's gonna take some time.  This is about way more than flipping a switch.  We're talking money flows.  Political interests.  Industries with insane influence built up over decades.  It's gonna be a battle for sure.

I think it is crucial for governments to focus on developing infrastructure for technologies that are based on renewable energy... before fossil fuels run out. The global economy will collapse or it will become VERY expensive, if the supply of fossil fuel runs out.... and if there are no alternative to supplement or replace it.

I also think a hybrid system can utilize the best of both worlds... so you can drive on petrol and electricity to increase your driving distances and also to reduce the transport cost and still use fossil fuel and use "clean" energy. (Solar / Wind / Hydro ....etc)    

in accordance with the increasing use of energy by humans, if we only stick to the use of fossil energy, then of course fossil energy will run out quickly because it is non-renewable energy. moreover, large-scale use in industry, apart from accelerating the exhaustion of fossil energy supplies, will also lead to an increase in carbon dioxide, which will further exacerbate global warming.

so like it or not, we have to be able to switch to renewable energy such as wind, water, solar or geothermal energy, to be able to produce energy that will be used in various sectors. because if we only survive using fossil energy, we will not be able to meet global energy needs.

The conspiracy was that for many centuries we were forced to use only fossil fuel energy, the deposits of which were owned only by certain individuals and made multi-billion dollar fortunes from it. Therefore, they strictly ensured that the inventors of other types of energy and their inventions quickly died and disappeared. Now all of humanity is paying for this with rapid climate change throughout the planet. The temperature has already risen by about one and a half degrees, and this simply leads to catastrophic changes in everything. Scientists predict that soon people will be forced to flee from territories in which it will no longer be possible to live. At the same time, large areas of land will go under water, and the problem of drinking water will worsen. Fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes will become commonplace. Only after this will it dawn on some that the current problems with the transition to alternative energy sources were absolutely minor in comparison, which resulted in a reluctance to avoid influencing climate change. But unfortunately, it will be too late...

I do agree that this has no benefit to any big name to make some conspiracy theories, like lets assume that all those people who are claiming that the world will end, what are they gaining from saying that? I have seen a lot of people say the same thing about Greta Thunberg or whatever that girls name is, we could see that she could be a little brainwashed, someone at that age do not care about climate as much as she normally does, so it is a bit unusual I agree with that.

Let's assume that some adults brainwashed her. The real question is, why? What could you gain from brainwashing a kid to say all those things? What would anyone gain from it? Is this like... solar panel companies are doing it? I highly doubt that, believe me nobody gains anything from this.

It might be true if you have nuclear power plants, but the problem is that it's only present in 32 countries (source). Moreover, it's so regulated that not all of us can have the technology. 3rd worlders which account for most of earth's population still use coal. So using electric-powered items only moves away carbon emissions to these power plants.

I'm aware of this kind of opinion. It's similar to the opinion that we just don't find new explorable reservoirs because of the cost and technology. But it's there waiting for us to get it...

Most people just don't have humongous solar panels installed on their roofs. If "they" disconnect the electricity, you can't do anything if all your tools are powered by electricity.

Time to enjoy and don't give a f*ck
Yea, try to use a wok for your induction stove...

im on the positive view they probably want their citizen to diversify the use of energy not centralized around one so if one of the energy comes short it won't cause crisis i think thats what they are trying to do but considering the fact that they pushing electricity that hard could probably mean there are conspiracy theory but conspiracy theory is just a theory without sufficiend proof backing it up.
if you don't really feel the need to switch over you shouldn't things can change slowly instead of forcing and will just cause you to run out of your money real quick.
after all as you said if its for environment sake majority of electricity generated still use coal, unless they deploy nuclear reactor that could produce lesser carbon footprint then we are talking about switching over to EV or something like that.
but so far, if the infrastructure insufficient and the stuff with electricity still priced high I don't think its good idea for average people.

No commodity is running out any time soon, they will all be available now and in a century or more.   The point is to increase efficiency away from burning carbon based fuels, this could have been done a long time ago with nuclear power but not everyone wants to handle that kind of power and responsibilities required with its waste etc.

Theres no real conspiracy to take away power from people, most of us are not able to harvest oil based fuels ourselves.  At best our nation as a whole has some oil or gas or coal but overall its rarely about power to the people especially.    In future running your own solar or wind power might make a population of people far less dependent on central power companies; nobody can block your access to the sun really and similarly the wind is quite available to all in many areas.  Hydro is more controversial but I'd argue in future people will become more free without combustion engines, it will take time and development to improve technology for many years.

Electric motors and electric cars are currently more of an environmentally friendly factor that does not cause pollution. not because the petroleum factor is running out. because for now oil production in middle eastern countries or Arab countries is still high and plentiful.

If your country is a country that is not a country that produces gasoline and LPG, then depend on other countries, you would notice that the government will be more interested in reducing the dependence on LPG and gasoline and shifting to electricity that they can generate. You also know that with an increased usage of electrical appliance both now for cooking and in charging of your cars, your electricity tariff increases so that also benefits the government because the more electrical things you have that require electricity, the higher tariff they can generate from your usage.

While the professor might be right about massive oil reserves lasting a while, dismissing concerns completely is like burying your head in the sand. Even if there's a ton of oil out there, it's not like a magic well that never runs dry, right? Eventually, it'll all be used up. Plus, burning all that oil is messing with the climate, leading to crazy weather and health problems – not exactly a recipe for a chill future.

Some countries rely heavily on oil for their income. But clinging to the past like a life raft won't help. We gotta adapt, homie. Investing in green energy and new tech might seem tough, but it's like learning a new skill – challenging, but worth it in the long run.

As I understand it, even if we switch to clean energy fuels, we cannot meet consumption levels. We have many different solutions as well as finding fossil fuel sources with large enough reserves to survive centuries.

But it's still realistic that when they run out (we don't know exactly when), civilization may have actually progressed very differently from what it is now. I can feel that some things are being applied in a too sophisticated and complicated way, the application of quantum physics in life has not been exploited much. So, in parallel, regenerating the earth, colonizing planets, improving human intelligence,... are all difficult solutions at the present time but will be the direction for us to solve the problem.

It can be what you're thinking about but there is less of a chance to do it. Actually world's population is increasing very rapidly and the fossil fuels are continuously used up since decades.As we all know these are not unlimited so we have to be careful while using them.People their selves don't bother to save the fossils or use it according to need because it requires a lot of sense of responsibility.Then organisations have to come into play because they know how to make people survive in this world.

The second side of the coin is also true to some extent.The big powers might think of converting people to renewable and storing the fuels for their usage.Thats almost out of our reach to have an eye on that so let's try to find our comfort zone and just live in it rather then thinking too much.

Fossil fuel running out is perhaps due to the fact that many people have upgraded their energy demands or had to resort to using alternatives as the recent development emerged.
There's still time and until many borders decide to delve fully into renewable sources, there will still be those in their regions that depend on the use of fossil fuel for daily survival because that's what their current economic situation can afford.

The essence of introducing the electrical appliances to a society is a good one because it's easy, smart and lesser risk to be in use but the problem about it is that it is being too exorbitant in the fact that it requires regular maintenance which is expensive.

I beg your pardon, but are you sure that gas and oil are renewable sources?! They're as much fossil fuels as coal.
As of 2022, the overall picture of resources that generate electricity is as follows:
In relative units, %
Oil 0.4
Gas 12.3
Coal 5.2
Atom 13.1
Hydro 60.4
Renewable 7.9
Other 0.7
                  

Coal was the main driving force of the industrial revolution. Later renewable fuels such as oil or gas were gradually discovered. Today's world is hard to imagine without electricity. Most of the electricity is generated by burning these fossil fuels. Just what electricity people are constantly running around the world. The vehicles for this run are powered by fossil fuels no matter how you look at it fossil fuels have contributed greatly to this advance in civilization.

The depletion of fossil fuels is going to be more rampant now even though there's a lot of renewable energy and nuclear energy that's being utilized now, a lot of countries are going back to using fossil fuels, the biggest story that I've seen in years is that Germany is going back to using coal for a reliable energy source but I don't believe that because they've also shutdown their last nuclear power plant and there's probably other countries out there that's following suit to what Germany has been doin, and the answer for OP's question is that it's not going to run out anytime in our lifetime at least, there's about billions of years of life that's existed before us which means that there's a lot of buried carbon somewhere on this planet not to mention that oil is still the most used fuel for cars and there's still a lot of oil deposits that aren't completely untapped by refineries.

I think we still have time too because even if these countries are going back to fossil fuels, the hydroelectric powerplants, geothermal plants, solar powerplants and windmills won't just suddenly stop working so with a split like that where people are still using other means of creating electricity and using different fuel, fossil fuels won't easily run out.

I think it's just a scheme to get us to adapt to a new system of living they have envisioned and created, some big companies and countries to make their citizen buy more of their products by enforcing it in a kind of way just earn more tax revenue off them, like in my country for a whole year only one company was producing cement while the government ban other companies and promoted that only that one company should continue producing cement u till recent time when the law was changed.

But anyway the effect of fuel on our environment is not the best, it has contributed to a lot if carbon in the atmosphere and using electric based products is not such a bad idea either.

i do have to laugh when the big institutional influencers of the world talk about 'single use plastics'

if the world in one day stopped creating single use products. the by-product 'sludge' of petroleum refinement wont have as much demand to take the by-product to then use the sludge to convert to plastic products.. so it would remain as sludge

the reason single use plastic products is so cheap is because the toxic sludge needs to be made into SOMETHING else they will have stockpiles of waste at the refinery..

yes the sludge should be made into long-life plastic products like window frames, guttering that serve a purpose to homes for decades instead of a day. [insert many examples of long life use plastic products]
but the demand per barrel of sludge to become plastic for long term products is not there. hence why they literally give away the sludge to then be made into the cheapest most useless single use plastic things.. to stop a stock pile of barrels of sludge from piling up

..
the solution the big institutional influencers came up with decades ago is to continue to make single use plastics(big business in doing so).. also they need it off their property to not be their problem... so they continue.
however they then ask/demand citizens/consumers to then recycle the single use plastics, thus making it consumers problem. shifting the blame away from the petroleum refineries

time to what mate?  electrical products work just as well if not even better than their counterparts

maybe you are just not used to electrical devices being used instead of the what we can call traditional ones but we have no choice because as of right now this is what we have as a solution if there are no more fossil fuels it will be extremely bad for the economy all around the world so we should not wait for that to happen before we start changing our ways

I don’t think that electric vehicles or devices will under perform. Though it is a new concept, but it works just as previous ones do. Tesla cars are electric, if you test the speed of the car, you’d see how fast and how it overshadows certain fuel-powered cars. Same as the electric stoves too, it works very well. The only concern should be the cost however, it’s a good thing to the world. If we can eradicate burning of fuel then hopefully the earth can be a better place and may exits longer.

Whether or not the government has some kind of hidden agenda behind this, I still think that we should really start thinking about using renewable energy. When are we going to switch to more environmental friendly products? When there is completely no fossil fuel and our climate is damaged to the point of no return?

I do not think that the issue has anything to do with a conspiracy theory. There is a real energy problem in the world, not only because of the depletion of fossil fuels from major reserve sources, but also because of conflicts and wars that lead to problems in fuel supply.

I see that there are political reasons, not just economic or environmental, because the main oil and gas producing regions in the world are the Middle East for oil and Russia for gas, and all of them have problems and conflicts, and this leads to disruption or delay in the arrival of these basic materials to Europe and also their use as political pressure cards on Europe does, as does Russia, so moving to renewable energy will have economic, environmental, and political advantages as well.

Humanity needed to intensively search for new alternative methods of energy production as soon as they began to use oil and gas for this. This was not done because their use was relatively simple and cost-effective. On the other hand, oil and gas corporations severely prevented the invention and use of other methods of obtaining cheap energy, even to the point of physically eliminating inventors and their inventions in order to maintain their excess profits.

Gas and oil fields are really drying up and we should think better about using their remains not as fuel, but as raw materials for other industries, including food. Their use has become one of the reasons for the increase in average temperature on the planet by one and a half degrees. which is already almost a critical point for people’s lives. Therefore, in any case, humanity needs to switch to other types of energy use.

Conspiracy theories about elite involvement and control may reflect a distrust of authority and institutions, but in fact, the transition to renewable energy is a collective effort and step to maintain the sustainability of the planet we live on.

A concern that arises due to the cost and performance of new equipment, this is a fairly common problem. Indeed, this transition often requires a fairly significant initial investment, as well as several other problems that must be resolved. Talking about the transition to renewable energy, this is not only a direction for the wider community, but also a response to the real challenges that are visible before our eyes related to climate change.

I think it has more to do with carbon emission, the government of your country wants to rapidly move to renewable source of energy, that is why maybe I feel they've instructed manufacturers to sort of produce some of the equipments that will use more of electricity instead of gasoline.

Don't be skeptical about the performance of the new electric materials, the manufacturers already know the standard and what to produce, so don't be skeptical about the usage, however you should be concerned about the amount of power these equipments might consume because I'm seeing your electric bill going up.

I don't see it as a conspiracy theory anywhere, I believe the government in your country is laying the needed environment for the new phase of our new reality that we are going to come into in the next 10 years or more. Forget about the mileage electric cars can go, with time production of electric cars that can go far distance will come onboard.

What does WEF even do? Most of them are so fat they don't even leave Davos.

WEF is full of lunatics but I feel that these kind of conspiracy theories involving them don't have any substance. There are much more practical reasons why people would think that electric versions of devices are (created) bad, like: Cost cutting on the part of factories, bribes (think Volkswagen emissions scandal), power failures, and maybe human stupidity as well.

there is enough surface area of planet so that the suns energy can be captured, there is enough water area/movement of rivers and seas that can be captured
the issue is the rare metals of the technology to do the capturing..... and now ill reveal the solution
nasa is not doing project artemis for science of knowledge of the universe.. its for rare element mining

there are more rare metals in a asteroid than in a plot of land on earth
(get 2 hard silica balls.. 1 you hang above your head like a Piñata. the other you throw on your backyard soil so it shatters, spreads like dust and mixes with the soil, then tell me which is easier to get large clumps of near-pure from.. answer: the Piñata(with the right technology))


the fresh unused nuclear rods are very radio active.. and in solid form
when depleted after use. less soo radio active.. hint: depleted
the water cooling fluid (waste you speak of) is less radio active than fresh mined nuclear solids(pre used)..
but still in liquid form, waste can be hazardous if it spilled in the open air to evaporate and contaminate the air... so carefully putting it in the ground in the place they found the highly radio active solids is the answer

the whole "but it will toxify the land if you put it in the land" silliness is silly because the solids came from the ground and were more radio active/toxic when originally in the land..
same goes for oil sludge by-product of refining oil. put it back into the empty holes the oil came from

the 'toxic threat' problems only exist/persist if left on the surface to contaminate the air and water and SURFACE-land we humans come into contact with

The problem of fossil dependency is multifaceted.
On the one hand, it is not quite right to talk about the "disappearance" of fossil fuels such as hydrocarbons. It is not entirely true. The truth is that these resources, which can be extracted technologically easily and at acceptable costs, are really scarce and their volume is shrinking. For the world economy, this clearly indicates that within 30-50 years (and this is the period that today's deposits are limited to), the cost of such a resource will have a very strong and negative impact on the economy.
Yes, there was also a problem "from the last century" - pollution of the environment by carbon dioxide emissions. I'm not ready to say how much it really has a strong and negative impact, as many statements turned out to be more populist than scientific.
Well and the third problem, which appeared after 2022 - for example, gas and oil have become a means of economic terrorization of the normal world by terrorist countries. Therefore, reducing the dependence of developed countries on such resources is a double benefit - freedom from the antics of inadequate regimes, the absence of forced sponsorship of terrorist regimes, diversification of the economy, and leaving resources that can be used for manipulation.

At the same time, I would like to note that normal countries that supply oil, for example, have been investing huge amounts of money in the development of alternative energy sources for many years, realizing that their wealth - oil - is not eternal. And only backward, savage regimes continue to mentally self-satisfy themselves by constantly repeating the song "oil will only get more expensive, without our gas everyone will freeze"

The thing they aren't telling us is how they're going to supply the needed electricity for all this demand. Considering how a major part of their arguments for this replacement is "environmental related". Many electricity production methods are not as clean as they're advertised. For example the nuclear power plants create a lot of pollution and create "nuclear garbage" that hurts the environment more than fossil fuels specially if they're used at large like what they're planning on doing (replacing everything with electrical versions).

As for fossil fuels, they are running out but not as fast as some reports say (like the usual 50 years). We still have a century or two of fossil fuels left. One of the main reasons why some countries (specially in the West) are desperately trying to abandon or reduce their need of fossil fuels is political since they are a net importer of it from the Eastern bloc!

I also would like to point out that fossil fuels like oil and gas are used in a lot more things that can be replaced. For example the tires used in an EV is still considered a petro product thing! So the need for fossil fuel is not going away in our lifetime.

Pressure on fossil fuels has increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. The world is also moving forward at a very fast speed and the population in the world is increasing day by day. Fossil fuels play an important role in fueling this growing population and development. Since fossil fuels are limited i.e. a fixed amount is stored underground, it is gradually depleting. Thus, a time will slowly come when fossil fuel will be completely exhausted, then the world will suffer from a fossil fuel crisis i.e. energy crisis. Many scientists and experts believe that we will run out of fossil fuels in the 21st century. So we should reduce the use of fossil fuels keeping in mind or thinking about our next generation and looking for alternative energy otherwise our future generation will face extreme threats.

Fossil fuels are formed from the dead leaves of trees and bodies that have been dead for about 650 million years. These fossil fuels are non-renewable and since they take billions of years to form, nature has limited reserves of them. Due to the growth of population and the development of civilization in the world, the use of such natural renewable energies is gradually increasing. According to scientists, by the end of the 21st century, all these natural energy sources will be exhausted so the world will fall into a big energy crisis.
So according to the information given by the scientists, we can say that fossil fuel is gradually running out. So we should think about our future generations and we should conserve fossil fuels and find and use renewable energy sources.

Although fossil fuels are limited resources, I don't believe that they're actually running out soon. There have always been statements about it, perhaps bordering on propaganda. I have already heard about it in my elementary school days. Only to find out decades later that the price of crude oil can actually go below $0. And production has to be lowered down a lot just for the price to rise.

There are certainly influential personalities and institutions that have selfish interests involved in the proliferation of this information. But they're not actually walking their talk. Especially when it comes to protecting the environment, there are so many hypocrites. And then the alternatives aren't actually better.

I would guess that it is not really about resources ending, but more about finite resources that hurt the environment versus infinite resource that's good for us. Even if you do not believe in climate change, let's assume that you do not care about that at all, we could just look at the economical approach to it.

The reality is that you can generate green energy forever, it will never end, just the winds and the sun is alone enough and every nation gets sunshine and/or winds which are enough for power generations, so it will be like that forever. However, when you are talking about fossil fuels, that's a finite resource that will eventually end, either it will end soon or it will end later on but it will end one day for sure. So, why not move to green energy instead.

fossil fuel isn't a renewable energy, even if there's still plenty of resources left it will depleted if our fossil fuel consumption keep climbing year by year, but whats more important than running out of fossil fuel is the carbon emission that it produced, good thing so many researches nowadays are finding alternative energy to it and one of them is electricity and white hydrogen fuel its definitely better to diversify the use of energy to fuel engine than just using one unified fossil fuel in the long term.
there's certainly nothing wrong with it and i think there's no conspiracy either, you are still free to use whatever energy you want to use well unless government decided to banned the use of fossil fuel.
I mean diesel are being banned everywhere due to producing too much pollution sometime its only allowed to be used for commercial purpose.
though i personally don't agree if we should all just suddenly switch over to electric vehicle, its better if we can wait until the infrastructure adequate first.

I think there's some kind of truth to what they're saying with fossil fuels. There's only a limited amount of them underground, and it's just natural that it will run out pretty soon unless you have a way to speed up the process of fossilization of animals and other organic matter. It's just that they're selling it at an exaggerated way that it forces people to not believe in it even though it's a reality.

Renewable energy is always the way to go, however our equipment and processes to harness it is still very primitive and not entirely efficient at the moment.

I don't get how we can be "controlled" by using more electric stuff and even be able to generate our own electricity. Remember, the whole world runs on money and that means if there is a way to make money then they will push us to that. I believe that if capitalism had their way, they would make electric stuff dangerous to use, like tesla would have been gone already, and everything else too, and would push us for fossil fuels, gas and such. However, with solar panels, and maybe even a small wind turbine (not the industrial giant ones) you can literally just build your own grid, and do not ever need to spend money on energy again, maybe redo them every few decades or so. That means you do not pay anyone at all, its yours, you pay significantly less on the capital compared to what you would pay each month on your bill. I can't really see the downside to this for an individual, sorry.

I was listening to one conference about "How to increase throughput of distillation of crude oil" and one professor made a statement that he is always amaze by how people talk about fossil fuels sometimes, some comments are so funny that he just assume people are too ignorant of what they don't know. He said that anytime people say crude oil is going to deplete and oil well will dry up, then that's a big fat lie. The oil and gas reservoirs are so enormous in large quantities that they are not going down even after his grand children becomes parent, theoretically is not possible.

I think your government are trying to promote free green house effects which is good. We are been warned about the global house warming, it's affecting our health and some are a very big disasters in some communities where crude oil are been drill. However, it's becoming difficult for some countries to readjust and that's because their main source of revenue is crude oil, we need to adapt to new tech for our own good, our own safety and good health.

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.