I think part of the issue is that we have suspected that enhanced levels of carbon dioxide, methane and lesser greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use and agricultural sources are impacting atmospheric composition, causing increases in temperature and causing climate change, for some time and the original lack of agreement on the links, effects and future consequences from scientists has meant that very little has been done about this. I think though that a consensus is gradually being reached, particularly if you take out those with occupational bias. It is clear that the Oil & Gas Majors are of the opinion that the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels, as they have cut investment on exploration and diverted it towards renewables and hydrogen. These open and frank discussions have been going on in academic circles for years and there are now thousands of publications on the science. Nobody on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc wants an open discussion, they just want to express their views and find people with like minded views, often with little insight, and an inability to understand the topic, but feeling they need to be heard.
As a geologist/geochemist who spends a large amount of my time studying palaeogeographies, palaeoclimate and palaeo-flora/fauna I know that there are a lot of anomalies out there (there are times in the past where we have had much higher carbon dioxide levels, due to volcanic activity, but temperatures were not much hotter than today). However there is plenty of empirical evidence that climate change is occurring and the argument that this is just another global warming cycle doesn't really hold up.
You may want an open discussion but with whom? If governments and big business have decided the transition is happening then you might as well get on board. Fossil fuels are being used up anyway so, even if it doesn't necessarily stop climate change, then why not go ahead now? Actually do something that will benefit future generations rather than leave it until we run out of oil, gas and coal. It will inevitably occur at a slower rate than COP26 and the UK Government would like, as countries that have huge amounts invested in the fossil fuel industry, and desperately need energy to support economic development (like Brazil, Indonesia, Russia) make the most of their remaining resources, However Peak Hydrocarbon Demand has already come down from 2050 to 2030 and that's now driven by the energy transition rather than resource depletion.
The good thing about the current climate panic is that it is driving major investment in research on alternative energy sources and bringing down the cost of the energy supplied so making it more economic to implement them. None of this will happen if the impact on individuals or countries is too great, in terms of loss of way of life, loss of income and reduction in economic development. I was listening to a webinar on Energy Transition the other day which showed that one of the things we will need to consider in the future is that farming, and particularly cattle farming, is a particularly wasteful use of land and a significant contributor to methane in the atmosphere. The land would be far better used for solar power plants or wind farms and beef/lamb growing restricted to laboratory environments (again another area of growing research with very encouraging results). It will be interesting to see how long that takes for people to accept that will be how their meat will be produced in future.
I have worked in the fossil fuel industry all my working life. However I am pragmatic. I can see that the lack of future investment in the exploration part of the business, where I work, means that its not a career I would recommend to my kids or future grandkids (not that they are interested). I am also happy that there is a lot more concern for the impact of all our actions on the environment - it bodes well for the future.
