Without fossil fuels, tens of millions of people will starve to death. Fossil fuels are here to stay precisely because no other energy source exists that is as energy dense, portable, safe, and cost-effective. Everything else is just hype and salesmanship.
What is the basis for this extraordinary assertion?
Without adaptation, climate change could depress growth in global agriculture yields up to 30 percent by 2050. That's 2 billion dead. By 2100 it could be more.
With some really clever policy it could be less, but there is no evidence of clever policy from anyone.
> our lineage of argumentation is non-conclusive as 30% change doesn't equate 2 billion death
World's population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. We grow enough food for 10 billion. Climate models say there will be 30% less food, so only enough to feed 7 billion.
These numbers are common knowledge, none of them are disputed. [1] Put 2 and 2 together.
What will happen to the 3 billion people that have nothing to eat?
The people is the impoverished global south can feed extra 1 billion by getting rid of animals, but then what?
Are the other 2 billion going to learn photosynthesis? Is the developed world going to give up food?
Put forward an actual counter argument, provide numbers, back them up with expert opinions.
The most defining quality of fossil fuels is that they are precisely not here to stay, even if you want to grant that they are otherwise unimpeachable.
Everything not-fossil-fuel is safer by orders of magnitude. A PV panel will output around as much energy per kg as fossil fuel burnt for electricity in a month. PV or wind are about half the price of coal or gas per kWh.
The only place fossil fuels win is power density, but that's not a deal breaker compared to the downsides.
