117
Scientists know how to phase out fossil fuels. Some countries are listening
(www.scientificamerican.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
117 points (98.3% liked)
Climate
8613 readers
250 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Which ones? Personal transport can be fixed with better urban design and EVs for the edge cases. Logistics can be largely replaced by rail, bike, and small EV. That leaves container shipping, which actually mostly moves fossil fuels, interestingly enough. A good amount of aircraft can be replaced with high speed rail or sleeper trains.
"Oh, but what about flights over the water?" Have you ever heard of a "ground effect aircraft?" This isn't even new tech. Google Project 903.
"Oh, but I have to be at a meeting in Beijing TOMORROW!" Yeah, fuck you, you don't. Business has unreasonable expectations that can be brought in to line with reality. Like, is it really worth killing us all to force the world to move this fast? No. This is fucking nonsense.
Between downshifting, designing things more efficiently, and using alternatives, a whole lot of this problem is solved.
And that's literally what "phase out" means. It means you replace a bunch of stuff and then work on figuring out anything that's left. So yeah. You're wrong.
Unless you'd like to explain why you're not.
I'm literally the guy who lives in large EU city with excellent public transport, and who has no car and lives near the metro station to maximize all its benefits.
As a 100% public transport commuter I can tell you, the correct way do develop infrastructure is to have solid mix of car infrastructure with network of busses trams and metro integrated into it. You just can't magically replace cars with busses, trams and metro for everyone. And car drivers will never going to be minority, because it's impossible to replace flexibility of the car.
High speed trains have the tiny issue of super expensive infrastructure that has to be built and maintained, while you can make airport almost anywhere. Would I want EU wide unified high speed train infrastructure that allows travel from Warsaw to Paris in few hours? Hell yes I would. But I have no delusions that you can make rail everywhere because costs are just too high, and flexibility isn't good enough for all use cases.
Just an FYI, Warsaw to Paris is in the works. The new EU rules for train operators will allow private operators to operate cross borders so in the future a sleeper train from Paris to Warsaw is going to be a thing. 12h, sleep 8, wait 4. Compared to flying and showing up 3 hours in advance with added to/from airport as 3h pre flight, 2h flight, 1h to/from airport to get to city center you'll have to spend more time waiting in flights with less comfort.
Helicopters are far more flexible, but you wouldn't make the same argument because it would be absurd. Cars will not be dominant because we will either replace them or society will collapse and destroy the vast logistic network they need to exist.
I haven't owned a car in years. I have two kids, and I'm able to take care of all my needs with a bakfiets and a longtail bike. There are things that would make bikes far more flexible, like more bike cars on trains and metros.
But it's honestly good enough. Sometimes you just don't do things, or things are a bit harder. I accept that trade because I'm not literally destroying my children's future.
It would be easy to ban cars from Amsterdam or Utrecht. They aren't banned in Amsterdam because there are too many people who are too rich to walk. It's not about flexibility there, it's about keeping the ultra rich safe.
Cars are only affordable and flexible because they have been made that way. Roads are massive investments that take away funds from other infrastructure. They are supported by massive subsidies: fuel, infrastructure, military, etc.
The moment you stop dumping money in to maintaining the status quo, even as it kills us, is the moment that cars and planes stop being the best option.
Car drivers are already the minority in Amsterdam. In the core metro area, there's less than .6 cars per household, while there are more bikes than people. If cars "will never be the minority," how are they literally the minority rights now?