We actually have too much coal left buried in north America, we need to burn more of it to secure a better future for our children

The goal post of fossil fuel depletion has been kept moving by altenergycels for decades.

Even IF we run out of, or get close to running out of FF by 2060, I'm sure we'll be naturally be far more efficient and cleaner by then in terms of transportation and energy production.

40 years ago, most cars on the road were still carbureted, and we had no where near the technology we have today for efficiency for appliances and power plants. At the rate we're progressing in tech, I wouldn't be concerned with a FF shortage. Now food on the other hand.......

There seems to be a debate.. and like nobody is aware. As to whether oil is a fossil fuel or abiotic. Which means you can create oil from inorganic matter, which means.. you can create oil

Russia says theyve known oil is abiotic for yearsssss

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

If you type in "is oil abiotic" about the 4th one down is umsl.edu, id link it but its a download, and they brought up a good point too. Water is heavier than oil and yet you see us drilling down deep lol

So that means the oil is produced down in the core and comes up. Not that its created from falling sediment

Again...increasing needs at an increasing rate, increasing resources at a decreasing rate. This is a problem.

They told us it would run out in 50 years nearly 50 years ago...

When Will We Run Out of Fossil Fuels? Likely, never

https://shubhamjain.co/2020/06/06/wh...s-likely-never

bruh, jfl @ STILL believing “experts” with taxpayer money and political clout on the line. they have been saying these same lies for almost 100 years and they simply keep refreshing the deadline so that its far enough way that they personally wont have to face reaponsibility for being wrong but close enough to garner enough panic from people like you to keep getting money.

just stop and wake the fuk up. I figured all the lies around COVID would have woken every single person up but i guess there will always be a few out there who are just unwilling to cut the cord.

with that said, nuclear fusion will be far superior anyway and should be here by 2060 (2100 by the time 2060 comes around and we still have plenty of fossil fuels)

This^

The AI singularity happens in 2040. By 2050 machines will wipe out the last human. Read a fukin book OP

No big deal, global warming will have wiped us out before 2060.

Just like Y2K

Just like Anthrax

Just like 2012 Mayan calendar

Just like NK war

Just like COVID-19

Just like *insert fear mongering here*

You'd have to be retarded to believe this, I'll try to help.

The United States has its own oil reserves, and oil resources. Even if world supply constricted, US supply would not.

Hope that helps.

Hey joocy why did you ignore this guy he was before others you replied to?

AOC say the planet only has 12 years left.
Looks like we will have plenty to spare.

What is your source

Even the Green lobbyists abandoned the "we're running out!" fear mongering tactic - they know no one will believe that BS anymore. Extremely played out at this point.

We'll have helium-3 or some other crazy ass energy supply in a few decades anyway.

We need a pandemic to stop exponential growth . Wait wut

I'm far more worried about water than I am oil. Looking at the state of useable water without treatment plants there are already places around the world running out in India and South Africa. We need to build major desalinization plants in a lot of places, including California. There's tons of water in the oceans of course, but that doesn't help farmers and lake beds and rivers are drying up rapidly.

******* OP needs to realize we live in a world of color.

Where tf do you think paint comes from?

Oil is here to stay keep coping soyo

Can you name one time the experts made a prediction about climate change or anything like this which actually came true? Just once, thanks.

I couldn't hear what OP was saying over the sound of all the melted glaciers

******* Alts will be exhausted by the end of 2021 - we need to invest in more disposable accounts.

Putting experts in quotes doesn't negate their academic certifications. The scientific community doesn't have economical reasons to hypothesise depletion of fossil fuels or "garner panic" as you say. How would that benefit them? On the other hand you have fossil fuel companies such as Exxon who have purposefully sowed doubt and uncertainty in the debate surrounding fossil fuels and climate change. Exxon knew about their role in inducing climate change as early as 1977, proof:https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstac...esentation.pdf. Do you think Exxon has an economical reason to distort the debate around fossil fuels and climate change? That is a rhetorical question btw if you hadn't caught on.

The scientific community is not in agreement on when exactly fossil fuels will run out, but that is because there are a lot of uncertainties underlying the long run fossil fuel depletion. The two main uncertainties are the amount of consumption of fossil fuels and the amount of innovation. If we stay on our current path of consumption and innovation, we will run out soon enough. This paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.016) postulates we will run out of oil and gas in 2042. After that we will have to rely on coal, which is terrible for the environment. Renewable energy is the way forward.

What the scientific community is in agreement on is human-caused climate change and its adverse consequences for the planet. The magnitude of the adverse consequences is subject to uncertainty, but even the most conservative estimates paint a grim picture. And don't even dare to politicise or deny climate change because it is an EMPIRICAL FACT.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0270467619886266You think 11,602 peer reviewed articles were made to "garner panic and keep getting money"?

Truly one of the tragedies of our time that capitalist interests have managed to politicise and sow doubt around the undeniable destruction of the whole planet, and for what? Short term profits... In the long term it's more profitable and better for everybody to develop and switch to renewable and sustainable resources such as nuclear fusion you mention.

If you're going to reply to this with more absurd statements, at least try to provide some empirical sources. Spoiler alert, you won't, because they're not out there.

Can someone aware me on nuclear fusion please

You sound like a *******. Tempted to neg.

I think I'll be dead before 2060 and honestly don't give a sht. I wish I could neg you twice O*******

This. They're not "fossil" fuels.

And arguing from the "consensus of experts" has a really bad track record lately, in fact it probably has for all of human history. Consensus is a terrible way to determine things, it's the opposite of the scientific method.

You say it should be here, but we aren't funding it much.

Congratulations! You win the moron post of the week and it is only Monday. That might be a new record.

They are effectively fossil, it takes millions of years to form fossil fuels and we are consuming them at a much higher rate than the rate at which they are created. You are arguing in bad faith.

You also misunderstand the meaning of scientific consensus. Generally, there is a scientific consensus within an established scientific paradigm. Sometimes paradigm shifts occur (e.g. Einstein's formulation of general relativity) and the foundations of the field have to be re-examined and adapted to fit the new observations or theory. But within a paradigm, there mostly is a consensus on how things work. This is a GOOD thing, because otherwise you'd never be able to know what the "truth" was.

I put truth in quotation marks, because truth is relative. There may be an absolute Platonic truth out there in its idealised form, but we certainly cannot grasp it clouded by our empirical observations.

wow, I missed that one originally.