Humankind should make a collective decision to immediately stop fossil fuel usage

The argument

Climate change has been steadily studied for many decades now, and despite the warnings from scientists, the world continues to use fossil fuels that increase carbon emissions, causing irreparable damage to the Earth's environment. The length of that record is part of the argument: this is not a hazard that has just been identified and now needs investigating, but one that has been understood for a long time and acted on slowly, which is why proponents treat further gradualism as a decision rather than as caution. Carbon emissions are one of many factors contributing to climate change, but they are one that can be tackled quickly and safely — and the argument for immediacy rests on that tractability rather than on urgency alone. Several plans have been put forth by environmental organizations that propose quick and safe ways to transition from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy sources. Those plans take into account a variety of economic situations, as not all countries have the same financial resources, which meets the most common objection directly: the case is not that every country should move identically, but that the transition has already been worked out in forms that account for the differences between them. There is no reason that the renewable energy market cannot become a new pillar of the world economy over fossil fuels, however painful that initial shift may be. The disruption is acknowledged rather than denied; it is set against damage described as irreparable, which cannot be undone at any later price. Larger and more developed nations would make an enormous impact by making this transition quickly and setting the example for other countries to do the same, for the collective benefit of humankind.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While aiming to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2030 is an admirable goal, it is not realistic. Not only would such a radical move completely up-end economies around the world, but it would also require a massive overhaul and retrofit of systems across every nation that have been made with fossil fuels in mind. This will take quite some time to do, as, despite the best intentions and goals for the future, not all countries have the financial resources to tear down and rebuild the infrastructure needed within one decade.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Can be tackled quickly and safely" is asserted exactly where the argument most needs support. Fossil fuels supply the large majority of primary energy and are embedded in steel, cement, fertiliser, shipping and aviation, where substitutes are least developed; the decades of warning the premise cites are evidence of how hard replacement has proved rather than of how easy it is. Nothing here separates what is technically possible from what can be done at once. [Rejecting P2] That transition plans have been proposed is not evidence that immediate cessation is feasible, and the premise concedes as much in noting that the plans must "account for different economic situations" — a phased approach under another name. Setting an example is a claim about influence rather than about emissions: developed nations are now well under half of current output, so their moving fast is necessary without being sufficient. [Rejecting C] "A collective decision" conceals the difficulty. No body exists that could make it, and the countries whose emissions are rising fastest are those using fossil energy to reach living standards the wealthy nations already hold — which is why the pace of the phase-out, the question actually asked, is contested rather than obvious.