Suppose we have a limited amount of fodder for a herd of cows. Suppose that winter has an unlimited duration, and that fodder is not a renewable resource. It is not possible to feed the herd of cows throughout the winter; it is not even possible to feed a single cow for this duration. If we prevent some cows from consuming forage or force them to consume less, the forage will be consumed more slowly, but it will still be consumed completely. Cows will emit the same amount of greenhouse gases (GHG). Some cows will starve before others, in a somewhat slower process. But the quantity of fodder consumed or GHGs emitted will be exactly the same.
The same reasoning applies to fossil fuels and human society.
In the hypothesis where the consumption of fossil fuels would be lower than actual production capacities, GHG emissions would be slowed down a little, but the final GHG emissions would be the same, with a time lag of a few decades.
Given that the climate impact would be the same, no country has an interest in voluntarily reducing its emissions. All countries have an interest in consuming fossil fuels as much as possible and as quickly as possible, in order to maximize local benefit, while the global harm would be the same.
This means that GHG emissions will not be minimized, but maximized. Global consumption of fossil energy will be regulated on production capacities, and not on “policies” to reduce emissions.
What we are witnessing today is the ball of hypocrites, who invite fools to dance. Since all profitable fossil fuels will be consumed anyway, reducing the consumption of some simply means leaving this energy to others, who will not fail to monopolize it.
I can’t understand how people fail to see this hypocrisy, when the biggest supporters of energy restrictions are billionaires who travel in private jets, yachts and helicopters.
All profitable fossil energy will be consumed, all resulting GHGs will be emitted. It’s just that some will consume and emit more than others.