" 1. continue using fossil fuel even though they are starting to run out... "
That is not exactly true. Oil production in the ME is, by the look of it declining but there are still heaps of fossil fuel reserves all over the world. That, though, does not mean that we should carry on burning it regardless. I believe that the tree huggers has got it all wrong. They should, IMO, put as much effort into "clean burning" processes of fossil fuel while they develop and improve other renewable energy sources. These so-called clean burning processes are very costly at the moment but further development and more general use will surely bring the cost down to economical levels in the same way that has happened with technology.
Look at this, for instance:
Clean-burning fossil fuels
By RP Siegel
Is it possible to produce electricity from fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal, without emitting carbon dioxide?
We’ve all heard about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which has been demonstrated on a large scale, but it has been costly and unwieldy for full commercial implementation.
Now there is another way, thanks to Professor LS Fan and his team at Ohio State University. Fan has been working in the area of air pollution control and mitigation his entire career and is now focused intensely on the carbon dioxide problem.
Innovations to chemical looping
Fan and his team have come up with innovations to a process called chemical looping, which, while somewhat complicated, open up an entirely new path for not only producing electricity but also valuable chemicals such as hydrogen and various hydrocarbons that form the basis of many common materials. The versatility of the chemical looping technology platform, combined with the recent innovations of Fan and his team, can potentially provide cost-efficient solutions to several of the grand challenges associated with global energy consumption.
In a power generation application, chemical looping, like more conventional power generation sources, produces heat, which is then converted to electricity using turbines. However, the path used to get there is entirely different.
Traditional combustion occurs when fuel combines rapidly with oxygen from the air. With chemical looping, the oxygen is provided in the absence of air, by a metal oxide which is regenerated at the end of the process. Using chemical looping for combustion applications provides electricity along with the production of pure, sequestration-ready CO2 at a significantly lower cost than conventional CCS technologies. One surprising aspect of this looping process is the fact that there is no flame involved. Rather, metal and fuel are burned in a separate reactor without a flame, while still giving off an amount of heat comparable to burning carbon. The process is much cleaner than conventional combustion systems because in addition to CO2 capture, it can also reduce NOx emissions due to its unique reaction scheme.
......and this one
Renewable Power Exceeded Coal For The First Time in US History And None of Us Noticed
CARLY CASSELLA28 JUN 2019
This April, renewables were put to the test like never before. For the first time in United States history, clean energy sources shouldered more of the nation's electricity needs than coal.
A monthly report from the Energy Information Administration shows that renewables such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric dams provided 23 percent of the month's electricity, while coal supplied only 20 percent.
The difference boils down to roughly 8.5 million megawatt-hours less of fossil fuel-driven power. It's also the least amount of coal the US has burned in over a decade.
"2. ignore scientific advice that lithium is already a more environmentally friendly alternative, with lots of opportunity for ongoing improvement. "
What are we going to do when Lithium, like fossil fuels, run out?
Once again. Forget that lithium is the be all and end all and stop shoving money into useless political climate change campaigns and BS and direct the money towards more viable options like advancing the production of stuff like graphene.
"Time to start listening to scientists, who know more than local Church leaders "
I will come back to this one last.
"Not sure what liberalism to do with this. It is just showing some consideration for future generations, so they still have a planet. (God is not going to intervene, even if he does even exists). "
I would rather call it leftism but that is just me. It has everything to do with the lefties because they expect you to kowtow to the narrative and if you don't it automatically makes you an extreme far right racist and a bigot. I don't know they get to that but it is the reality. Consideration for future generation, my arse. It is all about money. The more they can instill fear into everybody the more money they will get for their "projects". Shyte like the Paris Agreement.
" Science has not proven the exact effects of man's influence on the environment, but they certainly recommend showing caution. "
Correct. It is mostly assumptions and as we all know..... assumption is the mother of all fuckups. They keep on dodging the simple question.... How did previous cycles of global warming occur when there were no cars end factories and when the population was a fraction of what it is today?
"David Attenborough was another who recently warned of the possible future effects of the environment. "
DA had one major contribution. He made the world aware of pollution of the ocean and the danger of continued use of plastic. As far as global warming and climate change is concerned he is on the same page as the tree huggers.
Now, back to your other point:
" Time to start listening to scientists"
Exactly, which is why I referred to the investment in further research into more efficient and clean burning of fossil fuels in parallel with other energy research, instead of this new green deal BS that the leftie idiots, led by that dumb waitress from the Bronx, is trying to sell to everybody.