Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics
@Mike Street.
"The only thing that would make any difference is a world-wide ban of fossil fuel use. Since that ain't going to happen in any foreseeable timescale, the point is moot."
What?
At the further ends of this argument, the same ridiculous extreme is claimed - that only total cessation will achieve anything. On the one side, this is used to try an say how catastrophic and urgent this all is and on the other side, it's to say how bad it will be for society if we do cut down.
Would our environment suffer if we stopped burning fossil fuels? No. Would we enjoy cleaner air and water if the whole world moved completely to renewable energy? Yes.
But is such wholesale change actually necessary to make a difference? No. And no reasonable person would claim that. To do so is like saying that just because one person in your street does not recycle, that no one should.
I think once we do make the transition to real renewable power, it will be a great boon for society as a modern standard of life does require high power usage and the cheaper the energy, the better. Sure, renewable energy is not cheap at the moment but one day it WILL be much cheaper than burning what is left of our fossil fuels.
The fact that it is difficult to see air-travel survive in the near medium-term without fossil fuels does not mean that driving an electric car is pointless. The aim of most reasonable people here is to reduce the usage that we feasibly can so that what reserves we have can be used where there really aren't viable alternatives.
If these reserves are not infinite - and they are certainly not - then one can almost discount the environmental angle: when something becomes scarce, uses that are most critical must be attended to first. If you can predict this scarcity then it is prudent to transition what you can to alternate sources before you reach that point and things like air travel become prohibitively expensive.