SMOKING: You seem to have missed the point on the smoking analogy. The very same 'doctors' that tried to argue smoking was good for us sowed FUD about the science against smoking. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Some of
the very same people (see wiki) employed their skills against climate science, establishing the pattern of denial. You appear to have been taken in by the very same people you just referenced! Irony, much?
SUDDEN BANNING: That's ridiculous - please show where I suggested such a thing? I am with you in that suddenly BANNING fossil fuels would be horrendous! But this is where you have demonstrated how little you know about energy - and are just recycling other people's talking points. It would not kill 20 times as many people as the pollution (say 8 million) which would be 160 million people a year. No no no!
A sudden ban on fossil fuels would cause the collapse of industrial civilisation - and agriculture - and the death of about
6 to 7 billion people! It's the stuff of my nightmares - the stuff of Mad Max.
We "Eat fossil fuels" in that it takes 10 calories of oil to grow 1 calorie of food. We use the Haber-Bosch process to make nitrogen fertilisers and run harvesters and farm equivalent and all kinds of transport to create what James Howard Kunstler calls "The 3000 mile Caesar Salad".
Instead - I propose a ban on all NEW fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, and the removal of TRILLIONS in various kinds of subsidies to Big Oil from governments across the globe. I also propose we gradually increase a carbon tax to help us Refuel our civilisation on Renewables, Rezone our Cities around the best Ecocity Practices, Replenish the soil through various kinds of Regenerative Agriculture, and so much more.
The energy cost in fossil fuels to build the first generation of clean energy has been costed - it's about 6 months of carbon at today's rates. That's JUST the energy to build the world's first generation of an "All Electric" civilisation. It's not the fossil fuels to keep running things AS we deploy the clean tech - but as you can see - the energy cost to build renewables is not that much.
Just like any product release curve - the old will scale down as the new scales up. Faster than most think!
EV's: The ranges are already FANTASTIC for 95% of city driving. Highway driving should not be a problem AS the EV charging spots improve. Time them around a toilet break and drink, and you're done.
JANUS AUSTRALIA have EV trucks for Australian conditions - we have some of the biggest trucks in the world! Tesla's Semi requires a MEGACHARGER which can put stress on the local grid. Janus instead charge their batteries slowly - and then when the truck pulls in - a guy on a forklift swaps the truck battery over! Yep, battery swap. It can be done in 2 minutes.
INTERMITTENCY: You're thinking too locally. Intermittency is solved by OVERBULDING across the continent. This is affordable because wind and solar are now 1/4 cost of nukes per gigawatt. The savings can be put into the super-grid and batteries and OFF-river pumped hydro. As we "electrify everything" - energy becomes fungible. Big iron smelters in the Outback sunshine might have charged up their Rondo Heat Blocks - and have abundant extra energy to pump into the grid when Queensland is in cyclone weather under clouds. Other states can let their hydro dams go and get income from that stored energy when Sydney's in cloud. Or we'll just use Snowy 2.0 for the first 4 days at least. You'll see. It's not a problem. It's been calculated - and it's CHEAPER than coal!
We all know that solar power is only good for the best brightest third of a day, and that wind largely depends on the weather. How does a 100% renewable energy grid survive Dunkelflautes – th…
eclipsenow.wordpress.com
CLIMATE FANATICS:? Please retract that. There's climate science and policy - then there are some extremists within the movement. I would disagree with them, like some of the Extinction Rebellion assaults against public art, etc. I mean - how to tarnish the climate movement!? I disagree that they represent climate science and policy just as I disagree with the proposition that Westborough Baptists represent all Christianity when they do their obnoxious stunts. They do not! Not the bible I read - and not the churches I know! So please try to avoid inflammatory and derisive terms about a subject you seem to know little about.
The reality is the moment the world moves to renewables we are freed from depending on a finite and depleting resource - and can use abundant, recyclable materials to get our energy from!
OZONE layer DOES expand and contract naturally - it's the RANGE of expansion you don't understand. It is ALSO harmed by our chemicals. These 2 facts live comfortably alongside each other. It's the same with climate. Over hundreds of thousands of years things like the Milankovitch Cycles cause natural climate variation. Also - about 600 million years ago the world nearly froze. (Google "Snowball Earth".) Fortunately that was back when there were so many very active volcanoes poking through the ice that they FLOODED the atmosphere with CO2! Excessive CRAZY climate change resulted - with acid rain storms a millennia long - so acidic they melted rock - but all of this SAVED life on earth! My point? In that climate story, CO2 was the 'good guy' in the story of the development of life on earth.
Everything is about context and understanding the bigger picture. I suggest you start watching some real climate science channels that unpack it for lay people like myself. I'm no scientist - but I love the executive summaries - the stories from climate science and all these different fields. I suggest you develop some curiosity and learn more about the subject you are tarnishing without understanding.
Try this as a brief - Undeceptions by Dr John Dickson. He interviews one of the world's most famous evangelical climate scientists.
This is one of my favourite apologetics podcasts and one of my favourite episodes on my favourite podcast.
Cheers! Have a great weekend - and listen to this podcast regularly - it's quite encouraging.
Undeceptions Episode 26: This episode is more than the debate of climate change here on earth, it's about what lies behind such beliefs.
undeceptions.com
After that -
Just Have a Think YouTube is great - and you might like
Katharine Hayhoe's channel that sometimes caters to specifically Christian questions about climate change. (She is the climate lady interviewed by John Dickson above.)
Answer to Alaska oil Quiz:
I found figures ranging around 3.1 to 3.4 billion barrels left in Alaska.
Let's make it 4 billion barrels = 4000 million barrels / 100 million barrels day = ooops!
Only 40 days global consumption of oil.
We're saved!