The day will come when we run out of fossil fuels and all those things that rely on them will become useless and then we will need to evolve to cope without them, it will take thousands and thousands of years for the fossil fuels to be replaced and by then they may not even need them.
Looking back at to when the pioneers first arrived, they seemed to do just fine on their own: they didn't use fossil fuels; they were the first eco-users. Ever since we found fossil fuels, we used it as a "faster" and "easier" way of accomplishing tasks...And the more we've used, the more problems we've faced. I don't suggest a total halt, I suggest a gradual ease off of fossil fuels and an incorporation to more eco-friendly ways of dealing with energy spending.
In a relatively few short decades our civilization is undoing millions of years of natural carbon sequestration. Unless we quickly find a way to successfully re-sequester carbon artificially, pulling out CO2 from the atmosphere at least as fast as fossil fuel usage injects it, we must aim at stopping that usage. Research into, say, more advanced fracking techniques, would be time/money better spent researching non-fossil-fuel energy resources.
We have the technology to go way beyond combustion engines which have been around a while and haven't advanced much. I think with all the evidence one can see happening enviornmentally such as severe droughts and wildfires and storms that your grandma never imagined or saw in her liftime. But after long usage of fossil fuels we are starting to see the end results of age of oil. I believe the real drive to other ways to transport oneself other then having to use a fuel source when one can actually collect energy as one moves and with solar as one stands still. The technology that can be sustained is here and in development settling for oil and combustion engines in an age of great technological progress is total obsolesence. Besides the 300 mpg car isn't exactly for sale now is it they keep the mileage lower then the current technology allows which is actually at 3000 mpg. These developments in mpg don't really matter in the grand scope of things we have better technology that does zero damage to the environment in which we live why maintain damage to the planet when the facts are clear. If you have any question of whether or not one can effect ones planet just look up terraforming.
With all the new technology out there in the world, it would be very easy to get away from using fossil fuel. There are new ways to produce fuel such as the Canadian oil sands. With these new ways, we can stop the use of fossil fuels and move on to a cleaner way of producing fuel.
That is a fact. That fact makes it very clear that every day we continue to use fossil fuels, we are destroying the environment more. The only way to halt this destruction is to stop putting fossil fuels into the atmosphere, and take as much of it out of the air as possible.
The extraction and refinement of fossil fuels, as well as the emissions from their everyday use, are the biggest causes of global warming. If we cut down drastically, or stopped using them all together, global warming would be vastly decreased.
I believe that abandoning fossil fuel usage is the only way to combat global climate change. The moment that humanity abandons fossil fuel usage, we will see an immediate effect on air quality and temperature. Scientists had a good chance to measure the cooling effects and the global temperature change that was caused by the grounding of all air traffic on 9/11. As a result of the airplanes being grounded, the global temperature had cooled by a couple of degrees. We know that burning fossil fuels increases temperature and decreases air quality. To combat this effect directly, we must abandon the use of fossil fuels immediately.
No one can say what future innovation will do in rendering fossil fuel use environmentally safer, which makes it hard to speak in absolutes. But the explosion of energy use across the developing world, and the already-emerging consequences of existing (and apparently accelerating) climate changes, suggest that the responsible course of action is to invest heavily in alternatives to carbon-based energy sources. When one is facing a catastrophe with a thousand facets, a serious response requires addressing the problem at the roots. That would involve prominently addressing fossil fuel use, and not tinkering at the edges, hoping for a miracle.
Dependency on fossil fuels has a direct affect on global warming as it is the major source for increased climate change. The side-effects of fossil fuel usage also has great impact on the environment. Moreover, our planet does not have unlimited resources and continuous extraction cannot be a lasting solution. Hence, I believe abandoning fossil fuels is the only way to combat global climate change.
we need fossil fuels to do every day things like driving to work or flying in a plane. what would happen if we got rid of that? it would cost billions of dollars just put wind and solar panels up, but we could help just by not wasting so much energy in our homes.
There are a lot of other reason that effect global warming. For example, animals - especially cows and sheep - produce a lot of methane which will effect the ozone layer and methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. We try to capture methane but we cant capture all of them.
Deforestation is one of the main causes of global warming. Global warming is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases of which Carbon Dioxide makes up the main bulk of it. Vegetation have the ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and hence by clearing vast areas of vegetation would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being converted and resulting in a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Another major contributing factor is the rearing of cattle for food. Cattle produces a significant amount of methane gas which is able to trap more heat then carbon dioxide.
The only proof that humans cause global warming exists in clinate models. These machines have failed to replicate or predict temperture when CO2 is the assumed cause. They are so unreliable there is no case for man made warming. And this is why we need to look at past trends. Is ours any different? No, that's why geologists are the coubter consensus. If anything, they are MORE qualified. The current warming has come right on schedule. Cutting emissions would have no effect and would cost (example) 15% of Canada's GDP... So it's impractical and would have no effect.
Human fossil fuel use results in a completely negligible shift in global carbon dioxide levels, therefore abandoning fossil fuels will do nothing to change the climate. All climate change is natural and cyclic, related to solar and oceanic cycles, not manmade activities.
Fossil fuel emissions are one of the largest polluters in the world and, accordingly, contribute a great deal to global climate change. However, focusing only on fossil fuels is a mistake. For instance, trees form a critical part of the carbon cycle. The deforestation in South America is also a key contributor to global climate change, and should be addressed.
Fossil fuel usage is considered a major cause of global climate change. It is not necessarily the only cause, though. There are other possibilities, such as solar activity and natural planetary cycles. Abandoning fossil fuels would only affect the portion of climate change that results from their use. They wouldn't affect the portions caused by other events. Those would require alternative options. These alternative options would also work to combat the effects from fossil fuel usage, making the alternatives a more efficient use of resources and effort.
Human dependency on fossil fuel use is so great, that we will learn how to counter the climate change impact of the resulting emissions, rather than stopping the use of fossil fuels. The approaches will be in the area of efficiency, carbon sinks, and carbon sequestration. More efficient use of the fuels reduces the rate at which we need to consume them, and reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced. Carbon sinks, such as reforestation projects, will store carbon as a solid, rather than as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration, through such methods as carbon dioxide injection deep into the earth, is a long-term storage strategy. These three approaches will slow or halt the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, giving humans still more time to develop technologies, infrastructure, and lifestyles which will eventually dissipate the danger of climate change.
For instance, in addition to increasing pollution exponentially over the last 150 years, we have also depleted much of earth's natural defenses that prevent an over-accumulation of CO2 in our forests, by creating cities that increase the greenhouse effect and slowly cutting down rainforests. These actions must end as well. And steps need to be taken to increase green growth, including the rehabilitation of cities with green roofs, and staying away from areas that provide immense amounts of ecological protection.
In addition to giving up on fossil fuels in an effort to slow climate change, we can also reduce our use of paper products and building supplies and limit the destruction of forests by slowing/stopping the expansion of cities. Limiting the creation of plastic products which are mot generally biodegradable will also help, as will smart farming-as the mass amounts of crops necessary to feed the world is badly damaging the environment due to the size of land used as well as the amounts of fertilizer that must be produced and used to grow the crops.