COP30 decided not to mention phasing out fossil fuels. A step in the right direction.

[blackbird]

Much to the dismay of the European Union and some other radical climate change warrior countries, the COP30 summit did not mention phasing out fossil fuels.  This is a small step of sanity, but it does not end the world's obsession for a war on climate change madness.  

That should be a small if temporary relief.  We have had enough of the Liberal/NDP war on climate change which has cost Canadians billions of dollars and hurt our standard of living.  The war on climate change under the Liberals/NDP helped increase the cost of everything and left society with poorer health care, less housing, etc. The energy industry has been greatly harmed, no more pipelines law, energy caps, carbon taxes, tanker ban, etc. have massively reduced the amount of revenue for the government and increased the federal deficit to around 70 billions dollars, not to mention the increased costs of living for everyone.

If they had decided to put phasing out fossil fuels in their final statement, what would the world replace it with?  There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.  Fossil fuels are used for almost everything.  Hundreds of millions of vehicles, ships, planes, homes, manufactured goods, and almost everything we have depends on fossil fuels.  Life on earth depends on it.  It is very naive to think mankind can just phase out something like fossil fuels.  It is like saying let's phase out the air we breath.   Totally insane.

 

Edited November 23, 2025 by blackbird

[John Stone]

phasing out fossil fuels is going to depend on science and by extension, technology. 

It is not going to happen overnight - the World is a complex spaceship. 

Trudeau and his laughable, Bill C-12????

naive doesn't describe it.

Is there Global hardship ahead? Definitely.

But most would like to face it while having a job to feed their families??  

Trudeau is/was a complete fool - he can thank his opposition for his disastrous tenure. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

If they had decided to put phasing out fossil fuels in their final statement, what would the world replace it with?

More alternatives.

It should be obvious by now that we need to plan for zero growth and probably shrinkage of the global economy.

The good news is that many countries are already experiencing near zero or even negative growth in their populations so that should make things a little easier.

This will probably be hardest on the top 3% than anyone, especially psychologically.

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

More alternatives.

Why do you not understand such a simple thing?  There is no alternative to fossil fuels.  They are used for almost everything that sustains life on earth.  Around 8 billion people on the planet depend on it.  There is nothing else that can just appear out of nowhere to replace oil for example.  Everything has to be economically viable and be capable of doing what fossil fuels do for every facet of life.  Nothing else exists that can do that.  Any alternative will go nowhere unless it is economically viable and nothing has been found to do that.

However, if you want to join the protests against the basics of life to make noise go for it.

Meanwhile, while the enviro dreamers in Canuckistan and the Europe Union sit in their comfortable armchairs pontificating about how the world should get rid of fossil fuels, the rest of world will continue as it is using fossil fuels and oil for everything and could care less what anybody else thinks.

Edited November 23, 2025 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.  Fossil fuels are used for almost everything.  Hundreds of millions of vehicles, ships, planes, homes, manufactured goods, and almost everything we have depends on fossil fuels.  Life on earth depends on it.

Replace it with nuclear power and electrified rail systems. Ships can run on nuclear power. Life on earth depends on transitioning off fossil fuel.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Why do you not understand such a simple thing? There is no alternative to fossil fuels.

I guess it must be the growing numbers of guests I have who pull into my driveway with electric cars.

I don't expect you to understand because, as you should know, electric cars were never mentioned in the Bible.

[blackbird]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Replace it with nuclear power and electrified rail systems. Ships can run on nuclear power. Life on earth depends on transitioning off fossil fuel.

That's not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future because the whole world is built on fossil fuels.  Any change would require an economically viable transition that was profitable and economic at the same time as a transition.  Who would pay for the alternative?  Someone has to pay for anything new.  Therefore it has to have a user who would pay for it.  It has to be profitable and most of the world is just scraping by on what we have now. 

It is easy to sit in your comfortable chair and wave your magic wand and say change the world, but there is no mechanism to make such a change happen.  Billions of people depend on the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.  I see no way it could be changed.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess it must be the growing numbers of guests I have who pull into my driveway with electric cars.

As I said before, you simply don't understand the world.  A percentage of EVs in one country is not going to change the world.  There are 8 billion people in the world that depend on fossil fuels for everything.  Nobody is going to spend money for something they don't need when they barely make ends meet now.  Millions of people use gas or oil vehicles and that will be the case for the foreseeable future.  Then there are ships, aircraft, trains, and farm machinery.  There is no major change on the horizon.  

only dreamers like yourself who think it can be changed magically.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

There are 8 billion people in the world that depend on fossil fuels for everything. 

There's no doubt the transition will be painful because we've put off making it for far too long. We should have been started preparing for this 50 years ago with an accelerated program of birth control.

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

only dreamers like yourself who think it can be changed magically.

No, this can only be achieved scientifically.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We should have been started preparing for this 50 years ago with an accelerated program of birth control.

If you stop people from being born, who would pay for your old age pension and fill all the jobs to keep society and life going?   That's no solution.

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, this can only be achieved scientifically.

Sure, tell us how it can be done.  What does science have to do with it?   You are talking about changing the world from the use of fossil fuels to something else, but have nothing to offer and no explanation of how it could happen and provide the same financial support to everyone.  For example, if someone suggests, bring in nuclear power .   How is that going to be paid for?   What will it replace?  Will it really make any difference if millions of people still need their cars, trucks, ships, planes, etc. etc.?   No there is no plan.   Idealism that are light on details and have no plan won't do anything.

As I said, every change must have the ability to support people financially and provide all the necessities of life in the transition process.  Nobody has figured out how such a thing would be possible.   That's why it won't happen.

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future because the whole world is built on fossil fuels.  Any change would require an economically viable transition that was profitable and economic at the same time as a transition.  Who would pay for the alternative?  Someone has to pay for anything new.  Therefore it has to have a user who would pay for it.  It has to be profitable and most of the world is just scraping by on what we have now. 

It is easy to sit in your comfortable chair and wave your magic wand and say change the world, but there is no mechanism to make such a change happen.  Billions of people depend on the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.  I see no way it could be changed.

You do not seem to grasp the cost of hot doing away with burning fossil resourses. I am curious to know what you physics prof told you about the ramifications of rapid climate change?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You do not seem to grasp the cost of hot doing away with burning fossil resourses. I am curious to know what you physics prof told you about the ramifications of rapid climate change?

That is just a claim with no real proof that man is the cause.

But that claim does nothing to explain how mankind could change from fossil fuels to something else.

I explained that there would have to be something that could support life in a transition.  It would have to be profitable enough to support such a change.  Theoretical ideas won't pay for anything.  There has to be a financially viable process to change or there can be no change from fossil fuels.

As an example, suppose a town wanted to stop using fossil fuels.  OK, what would they use instead?   Where is the money going to come from to pay for an alternative power source?   What about the jobs the people have?  Will they lose their jobs?  Who is going to pay for all that?

Edited November 23, 2025 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

For example, if someone suggests, bring in nuclear power .   How is that going to be paid for?

You are fixated on money. Okay, how much did the transmountain pipline cost. If we build hundreds of reactors, the cost comes down.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are fixated on money. Okay, how much did the transmountain pipline cost. If we build hundreds of reactors, the cost comes down.

Still, Canada is billions of dollars in debt now.  So where would the vast amounts of money come from to build these reactors?  How would the reactors power gas/diesel vehicles we have now?  What about the trains, trucks, ships, etc.  What would power them?

The world runs on money.  That is what feeds everyone and provides shelter, transportation and everything else.  Everything must be geared to money and income.  That's the reallity of the world.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

As I said, every change must have the ability to support people financially and provide all the necessities of life in the transition process.  Nobody has figured out how such a thing would be possible.

There's lots of people working on it. Go google up solutions to climate change yourself if you don't believe it 

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's why it won't happen.

Climate change will clearly force the issue one way or the other.

[eyeball]

Just now, blackbird said:

Still, Canada is billions of dollars in debt now.  So where would the vast amounts of money come from to build these reactors?  How would the reactors power gas/diesel vehicles we have now?  What about the trains, trucks, ships, etc.  What would power them?

The world runs on money. 

Clearly we need to reset the economy. Its the biggest driver of climate change bar none.

Thankfully people have been working on solutions towards this end. Again you'll have to do your own research on this. Anything I put before you will only frighten you.

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Still, Canada is billions of dollars in debt now.  So where would the vast amounts of money come from to build these reactors?  How would the reactors power gas/diesel vehicles we have now?  What about the trains, trucks, ships, etc.  What would power them?

The world runs on money.  That is what feeds everyone and provides shelter, transportation and everything else.  Everything must be geared to money and income.  That's the reallity of the world.

What price do you put on the lives of the unborn? We have ships and boats that run on nuclear power. Trains run on electricity all over the world. Aircraft and vehicles can be electric. 

 

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is just a claim with no real proof that man is the cause.

If your physics professor told you that, you may have grounds for litigation. You can prove the effect of CO2 on re-ratiation in any undergraduate physics lab. It is not a theory. When the results are predictable and measurable and repeatable, it becomes a scientifict fact. When it was hypothesized in 1859, it was a theory, but now it is a proven fact. Your teacher should be fired.

Edited November 23, 2025 by Queenmandy85

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Clearly we need to reset the economy.  

Imagine if you framed it as: The goal of providing material needs for a maximum number of people in your country. 

 

It would be easily within reach

[herbie]

No need to specifically mention what's already happening, is there/

[blackbird]

Climate alway changed and always will.  Man only contrbutes a very small percentage of CO2.  So that's one reason man is not the cause of climate change.

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Man only contrbutes a very small percentage of CO2.  So that's one reason man is not the cause of climate change.

It must be woman causing it then.

[TreeBeard]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is just a claim with no real proof that man is the cause.

Today’s conservatives are incredibly unserious people.  
 

Has there ever been a more useless cohort when it comes to solving serious societal and environmental issues?  
 

What do we do about climate change?

Conservatives - “it doesn’t exist”.  
 

Imagine if yesterday’s conservatives (Mulroney and Regan/Bush) claimed acid rain just didn’t exist….   

Edited November 24, 2025 by TreeBeard

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is no alternative to fossil fuels.

Tell the Chinese that.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/11/06/chinas-clean-energy-revolution-will-reshape-markets-and-politics

"China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics"

There will always be some need for fossil fuels, but eventually it will be largely superceded by renewables and nuclear.

Unfortunately the US has surrendered the technological edge to China.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

"China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics"

China's CO2 emissions have gone up in the past ten years and they have the highest emission level of any country at just over 30% of world emissions.

They did drop their emissions slightly in the past year by about 1%.  But it remains to be seen whether that will continue to drop.   They have some of the worst air polluted cities.

Fossil fuels is a vital resource for the eight billion people on earth and will continue into the foreseeable future.  As I explained, in order to transition to something else, certain requirements would have to be met.  There is no pathway to transition.   In any transition, the population still need good-paying jobs to support their families, build homes, buy cars, etc.  Our economy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and unless their is an economic way to support people, there won't be any transition.  Some richer people do buy EVs but that is not going to create a transition for many reasons.

What renewables are you speaking about?  There is nothing that can provide a means to transition.  In order for a country to switch to some other energy source, there has to be a good financial means to change.  The billions of people cannot be just cut off their fuel and all the goods require oil to be manufactured.  There is no means to transition.  All this talk of stopping fossil fuel use is just imaginary nonsense by environmental radicals.  There is no way to change to something else.

First there is no real viable alternative that could replace fossil fuels.   Nuclear power is extremely complex and expensive and can only provide a certain type of energy in a certain type of scenario.  It is not going to replace the hundreds of millions of motor vehicles.

The cost of EVs is still very high and taxpayers cannot pay for other people's EVs.  That is not fair or reasonable.  People are just trying to make a living.  We don't need or want government to take more money to spread around.  We've had enough under Trudeau.  Now we are deep in debt that must be paid for.  Thank Trudeau for that mess.

Wishful thinking is not going to eliminate fossil fuels.  The demand will continue and Canada should realize we can't rely on trade with the U.S.  We should be selling our oil to the rest of the world instead of 90% to the U.S. Oil exports create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in royalties and tax revenue for the country.  That's irreplaceable.

Edited November 24, 2025 by blackbird

[John Stone]

23 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Replace it with nuclear power and electrified rail systems. Ships can run on nuclear power. Life on earth depends on transitioning off fossil fuel.

Fusion energy is the answer -