>>20263241>Creating less carbon can't be a bad thingless plant growth (trees thrive on CO2)
higher energy prices (self-explanatory)
greater environmental destruction due to more widespread mining (see Brazil VALE/BHP tailings dam failure for example)
more logging and clearcutting of forests (for mines and renewables which need much more space than fossil fuel installations)
reduced development in the 3rd world (more poverty as they often depend upon cheap and abundant thermal coal)
more expensive and harder to get steel (coking coal is necessary for BOFs; EAFs can only recycle scrap)
less fertilizer, potentially leading to food shortages (Haber-Bosch process)
less petrochemicals (used everywhere, would have to be substituted with for example worse and more expensive organic products from flora and fauna = environmental destruction)
fact is, we need all the resources and energy we can get. We need oil, we need gas, we need thermal coal, we need metallurgical coal, we need nuclear, we need hydro, we need solar, we need wind, and we need other forms of energy and materials too. Otherwise shit gets fucked if we start getting categorically rid of some of these things. Climate guys are not environmentalists because they hyperfocus on CO2, and we don't even know for sure how much of an effect CO2 emissions are truly having on global clinate change. More importantly no consideration is given to the tradeoffs and consequences of getting rid of CO2 emissions.
