It's a political impossibility to get the whole world to give up
enough fossil fuel consumption to make a difference in the eventual outcome.
Not exact matches
While it is true that it is quite impossible to grow sufficient wood to replace our present rate of
fossil fuel consumption (there just is not
enough land available), wood could be at least a part of the solution.
The tax breaks would be more than
enough to keep
consumption high and energy would gradually shift to other sources and more efficient technology while supplying the developing world with more
fossil fuel.
Human CO2 emissions can be estimated from human
fossil fuel consumption, and there has been
enough of an increase in
fossil fuel consumption to produce the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
The USA has more than
enough commercially exploitable wind energy to replace all
fossil fuel consumption.
There is
enough biomass potential to completely replace the entire (current)
fossil fuel consumption of the world, recently estimated to be 388 exajoules worth.
Tragically, the net effect on the global atmospheric commons will be negligible, because if
enough consumers respond to non-price incentives to reduce their
consumption, the direct price of
fossil fuels will decline, making it economic for others to increase their
consumption.
This is a function of both countries not curbing their reduction in
fossil fuel consumption quickly
enough, as well as some countries resuming growth in
fossil fuel consumption.