Anti-Fossil Fuel Protestors Lead the Way and Live 'Off Grid'

As a kid growing up in the 1990s, I was aware of disparity of wealth in my parent's friendship group. They all went to school together and grew up within driving distance. Some of them had done well, started businesses and made money. And they would flaunt it. Other family friends did not, because they could not. But the parents and the kids all got on. In fact we'd get together for a BBQ every now and then in our small backyard in Summer. The beer flowed as did the conversation. And it was during a heated debate at one of these gatherings that I heard a phrase that stuck with me. I can't remember the topic of the argument but the words stayed with me, and it got me, as kid, thinking about the value of words versus action. The words were 'Champagne Socialist'. What a cool combination and collision of words.

And in a slightly untidy segue, as I sit here watching the news and seeing anti-fossil fuels protestors cementing their hands to the road to block traffic and spray paint over car dealership buildings, I can't help but draw some notable parallels between the behaviours of a "champagne socialist" and an anti-fossil fuel protester who retains a lifestyle reliant on fossil fuels:

• Hypocrisy of ideals versus actions - Both champion abstract ideals publicly but act contrary to them in their personal lives. The champagne socialist rants against wealth inequality yet enjoys luxury. The anti-fossil protester slams coal and the petrochemical industry, but doesn't curb their own use.
• Performative signalling - Their public acts are more for show and bolstering self-image rather than sincere commitment. The socialist adopts social justice posturing, and the anti-fossil protester makes speeches, disrupts and merely parades symbolic gestures.
• Lack of real sacrifice - At the end of the day, neither is willing to meaningfully alter their comfortable life. The socialist won't surrender wealth, the anti-fossil protester won't give up modern conveniences gifted to them by fossil fuels.
• Rationalizing contradictions - When called out, both make excuses to justify why they don't have to align values with lifestyle. The socialist claims wealth is needed to influence. The protester says system change is needed, not individual change.
• Undermines credibility - Their hypocrisy undercuts the causes they claim to stand for. People see through hollow sermonizing not backed by actions.
• Armchair activism - At its core, both are engaged in armchair activism demanding others change more than themselves. The socialist wants redistribution, the protester wants bans - but expect little self-change.

In essence, the champagne socialist and the comfortable protester both want to posture righteously but avoid personal sacrifice. This highlights the gulf between lofty rhetoric and on-ground reality. Credibility stems from leading by example and aligning words with deeds, even if gradually. Genuine advocacy requires accepting costs and trade-offs, not just pronouncements.

Now, it's not a new concept now and it wasn't then. It was the stoic Marcus Aurelius that said, 'In your actions, don't procrastinate. In your conversations, don't confuse. In your thoughts, don't wander. In your soul, don't be passive or aggressive.' So even in 170AD, someone still felt the need to call out the unthinking. The gist was engage your brain please.

Hunter Gather Lifestyle Back in Vogue?

In today's modern industrialized world, it is realistically impossible for an individual to completely eliminate their use of fossil fuels without reverting to a primitive hunter-gatherer subsistence lifestyle. So is it back in vogue? As described above, it is unlikely that hunter-gathers will be roaming the countryside anytime soon, as it would be hugely inconvenient to them. Fossil fuels are deeply embedded into almost every product, service, and system in our economies. However, there are certainly more extreme measures protesters could take to radically minimize their fossil fuel dependence in the short term, if they have the commitment and means to do so.

Some of the most impactful but difficult steps would be giving up all modern mechanized transport and mobility. This means no driving or flights, and relying exclusively on walking, biking, or at most animal-powered movement. Similarly, protesters could go entirely off the electricity grid, avoiding all home appliances and electronics that rely on fossil fuel-powered plants for charging or batteries containing petroleum derivatives. For food, they would need to grow or forage all their own meals, eliminating not just industrially-produced meat but even commercial plant crops that involve fertilizers, pesticides, plastic packaging and long-distance transport.

Taking it further, they may cease using any mass-produced goods at all, restricting themselves to only local handmade products from sustainable materials. Even clothes and basic implements would need to be self-made from renewable sources. Healthcare would be limited to traditional medicine and one's own immune system, eschewing all fossil fuel-based pharmaceuticals and hospitals. Financial services and digital technology enabled by extensive fossil fuel-powered infrastructure would also have to be abandoned.

In essence, an off-grid subsistence communal lifestyle detached from modern amenities and commerce, such as that followed by certain indigenous communities, is required to completely avoid any fossil fuel usage. But the downsides are clearly immense in terms of standard of living, nutrition, healthcare, education, communication, and overall life expectancy. This path is so extreme that likely only a tiny fraction of devoted activists would attempt it. Yet even then, indirect reliance on the existing fossil fuel-based systems around such communes is difficult to eliminate entirely.

So while protesters can and should take reasonable steps to curtail their own fossil fuel usage as much as feasible, expecting them to adopt medieval living conditions is highly impractical. The solution lies more in advocating a systemic transition of energy production, manufacturing, transportation and agriculture to renewable technologies. But individual behavioral shifts do complement policy changes. Protesters can lead by example while pushing for broader transformation rather than feel compelled to revert to primitive lifestyles devoid of most everything that makes modern life possible.

Complete Eradication of Fossil Fuels?

Completely eradicating fossil fuel usage from one's life immediately and entirely is likely impractical if not impossible at present. However, protesters could take more extreme measures to reduce their fossil fuel dependence in the short term:

• Give up all motorized transport and non-human powered mobility. Only walk, bike, or use animals for transport.
• Eliminate all electricity usage by going off-grid. Manual non-electric tools only and no electric heating/lighting.
• Grow/forage your own food only. No imported or commercially farmed foods. Reject fertilizers, pesticides, plastic packaging.
• Eliminate all mass-produced goods. Only use handmade products from local sustainable materials. No metals, plastics etc.
• No fossil fuel derived medicines or modern healthcare. Rely solely on traditional medicine and own immune system.
• Stop banking activities and technology use enabled by fossil-fueled infrastructure. Revert to the barter system, basic shelter, and self-education.
• Move to a fully self-sufficient commune living off-grid and detached from a broader fossil fuel-based society.

In essence, reverting to a pre-Industrial Revolution, subsistence living condition aligned with certain indigenous communities avoids fossil fuel usage.

So let's talk about one of those dirty fossil fuels, coal. There are different types of coal, which have different properties and different uses. Which coal are protestors talking about? All of it apparently. However, anti-fossil fuel protestors conflate coal definitions with confidence, innocence and ignorance in equal measure. To help everyone understand the difference, let’s start with definitions.

There are two main types of coal; metallurgical coal and thermal coal.

Metallurgical Coal

• Use case: Metallurgical coal, also called coking coal, is used for steel production. It is baked in hot furnaces to make coke, which is used to smelt iron ore into iron needed for steel.
• Coal rank: Metallurgical coal is usually bituminous or anthracite coal, which has higher energy content and carbon content compared to thermal coal.
• Quality: Metallurgical coal must have certain properties like low ash and sulfur content to make good coke. Thermal coal quality requirements are less strict in terms of purity.
• Price: Due to its scarcity and strict quality requirements, metallurgical coal is generally more expensive than thermal coal on an energy content basis.
• Supply: Metallurgical coal makes up a smaller share of total coal production globally, around 25%, compared to thermal coal, due to its specialized use case.
• Emissions: When burned, metallurgical coal emits more carbon dioxide per unit of heat generated than thermal coal because of its higher carbon content.

Metallurgical coal has specialized use in steelmaking and commands higher prices, while thermal coal is used more broadly for power generation. Reducing dependence on both types of coal can help combat climate change, but metallurgical coal may be harder to substitute in steel production currently.

Thermal Coal

Also known as steaming coal, is a type of coal that is burned for heat and used to generate electricity. Here are some key facts about thermal coal:

• Use: Thermal coal is burnt for heat and used for power generation to produce electricity. Thermal coal is primarily used as an energy source in coal-fired power plants to produce electricity. It provides around 30% of the world's primary energy needs and generates over 40% of global electricity.‍
• Coal rank: Thermal coal is usually of a lower rank than metallurgical coal, typically sub-bituminous or lignite. It has lower energy content and lower carbon content compared to higher-ranked coals.
• Composition: Thermal coal tends to have higher moisture and ash content and lower carbon content than metallurgical coal, making it less efficient but cheaper. Thermal coal quality requirements are less strict in terms of purity.
• Extraction: Major producers of thermal coal include Indonesia, Australia, Russia, South Africa and the US. Coal is mined from both underground and surface mines.
• Processing: Thermal coal may be washed with water to reduce ash and sulfur content to make it cleaner burning before being transported to power plants.

Metallurgical coal is an essential ingredient in steel production, which is crucial for building infrastructure and fueling industrialization. However, mining and burning metallurgical coal also contribute to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. Balancing these factors will be a key challenge going forward. As emerging economies like China and India rapidly develop, their steel production and demand for metallurgical coal have skyrocketed. Metallurgical coal is heated in ovens at high temperatures to produce high-quality coke, which serves as a reducing agent to smelt iron ore into iron. The carbon content of metallurgical coal makes it perfectly suited for this purpose. Without metallurgical coal, modern mass production of steel would simply not be possible.

China already accounts for over 50% of global steel output and relies heavily on imported metallurgical coal from exporters like Australia. India is another major steel producer projected to drive future growth in demand. Its domestic reserves of metallurgical coal are limited, necessitating greater imports. For developing countries seeking to urbanize and industrialize, steel is foundational for building infrastructure and expanding manufacturing capacity. Therefore, as these economies grow, their need for metallurgical coal is likely to increase as well.

However, mining and especially burning metallurgical coal also come with a heavy environmental toll. Metallurgical coal makes up around 25% of total global coal production. When burned, it releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that accelerate climate change. As climate impacts from increased extreme weather to melting glaciers become more apparent worldwide, there are growing calls to transition away from coal, including metallurgical coal.

Some analysts argue phasing out metallurgical coal completely right away could be problematic for steel supply chains. Potential alternatives like hydrogen direct reduced iron are still under development and not yet economically scalable. A more gradual transition may be advisable to avoid supply disruption that could ripple across industries dependent on steel. This debate illustrates the complex balancing act between metallurgical coal's current necessity and its long-term sustainability.

There are also efforts to reduce metallurgical coal's environmental impact in the short term, like carbon capture and storage technology for emissions at steel mills. However, such solutions are still emerging and not yet commercially viable. In the long run, curbing reliance on metallurgical coal aligns with climate goals, but getting there requires major investment and innovation to develop alternative steel production processes.

In conclusion, while metallurgical coal is currently critical for steelmaking, its continued use does pollute air quality. Suppliers like Australia that export metallurgical coal worldwide and major consumers like China and India have to balance economic development and environmental stewardship. Phasing out metallurgical coal over time in a strategic way that minimizes supply disruptions is desirable but challenging. It will likely require substantial transition planning and investment in alternative steelmaking technologies to meet global demand sustainably. There are no easy solutions, but balancing these trade-offs will define the future of the steel industry.

• Combustion: At coal power plants, thermal coal is pulverized and burned in a boiler to convert water into high-pressure steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity.
• Emissions: Burning thermal coal emits air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as well as high amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.
• Alternatives: Renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydropower are increasingly competing with and replacing thermal coal plants globally to reduce emissions. Although solar panels and wind turbines come with a host of challenges in the mining cost and lack of viable recycling solutions.

Thermal coal is a relatively abundant and cheap, and yes dirty, fuel source used worldwide for generating electricity through coal-fired power. ‍

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue:

Against banning coal use:

• Energy access - In developing countries, coal is often the most affordable and available energy source for providing electricity and powering industry.     Banning coal could deny basic energy access and slow economic development.
• Economic disruption - Industries like steel and cement making are currently reliant on coal. Phasing out coal abruptly could cause major supply chain disruptions and financial losses.
• Stranded assets - Countries and companies have invested heavily in coal power plants, mines, etc. They may lose these assets before their useful lifespans if forced to transition early.
• Unfair burden - Developed countries relied heavily on coal to industrialize and develop. Asking developing nations to give up coal now is hypocritical and places an unfair burden on them.

For banning coal use:

• Climate impact - Coal combustion drives significant greenhouse gas emissions contributing greatly to climate change, which disproportionately harms poorer nations.
• Health/environmental issues - Beyond emissions, coal use also causes air pollution, water contamination, and other environmental issues that impact local communities.
• Clean energy options - Renewables, though currently more expensive, are now viable alternatives. Developing nations have an opportunity to bypass the     “dirty” stage of development.
• Shared global responsibility - Climate change and emissions affect the entire world. Phasing out coal should be seen as a shared burden for developed and developing nations alike.
• Leadership opportunity - Leading on banning coal gives countries prestige and influence on the world stage as climate leaders.

There are good-faith arguments on both sides. An equitable solution may involve richer nations assisting poorer ones with financing renewable energy development as part of a broader collaborative transition away from coal. But there are understandable economic concerns behind continued coal usage as well, especially in nations still building core infrastructure.

On one hand, from an environmental perspective, stopping coal use is an important step to mitigate climate change globally. Coal combustion produces significant greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global warming. So having all countries phase out coal would provide the maximum emissions reduction benefit. However, developing nations argue coal has fuelled economic growth historically for today's advanced economies and allowed their high living standards. Banning coal now would deprive developing countries of the chance to lift their populations out of poverty through rapid industrialization. This raises questions of fairness and justice.

Banning coal also has different economic ramifications. Phasing out coal requires investing in alternative energy sources like solar, wind and hydropower. Developed nations have greater financial means to undertake an accelerated energy transition. Poorer nations may lack resources and technical know-how.

There are also geopolitical considerations. Some countries are abundantly endowed with coal or have based their economies on coal mining. They would suffer disproportionately from global coal prohibitions. Losing coal revenue can destabilise their economies and energy security. At the same time, leaders of developing nations argue they are most impacted by climate change effects like floods, droughts and heatwaves, despite their negligible historical contributions. Hence all nations have a shared duty to address the issue.

In light of these complexities, an equitable compromise could be requiring richer nations to phase out coal faster while helping poorer nations transition through funding and technology access support. Setting country-specific coal phase-out timelines based on means may allow balancing developmental needs with global environmental goals. But this requires political will on all sides.

While banning coal globally has merit environmentally, it raises issues of fairness and practical feasibility that likely require nuanced solutions allowing developmental flexibility rather than blanket prohibitions.

Who decides Which Countries Should Ban Coal?

Based on the developmental and economic considerations around banning coal, here are some examples of countries that could potentially be justifiably excluded from immediate outright coal prohibition:

• Developing nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America lack extensive access to electricity and rely on coal power plants to improve electrification and living standards for their populations. This includes countries like India, Vietnam, Kenya, and others.
• Emerging industrial powers like China and South Africa depend heavily on coal for key manufacturing industries like steel, cement, and chemicals. Phasing out coal too rapidly risks severe economic disruption.
• Low-income countries depend on coal exports for a major share of GDP and government revenue. This includes coal-exporting nations like Indonesia, Colombia,     and Mongolia. An abrupt coal ban would destabilize their economies.
• Countries with extensive legacy coal assets like power plants and mines with useful lifespans remaining. Early forced coal phase-outs may lead to stranded assets and financial distress for their owners. Examples are China, Germany, Poland, and the United States.
• Nations with limited alternatives to coal power due to a lack of domestic fossil fuel resources. For instance, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Korea may have fewer options to replace coal with natural gas. Renewables may also be initially expensive.
• Countries, where coal power provides reliable base load electricity, are not easily substituted by intermittent renewables. Examples are Japan, Kazakhstan and South Africa.

That said, even for these countries, transition planning from coal toward cleaner energy is necessary in the medium to long term. But a more gradual, supported transition may be a pragmatic approach versus outright bans in the short term. 

What’s a Reasonable Timeframe

Determining a reasonable timeframe for developing nations to phase out coal use is challenging and would likely need to be assessed on a country-by-country basis.

• Provide flexible timeframes correlated to development status - Less developed nations may require more time, perhaps 30+ years, while more advanced emerging economies could have shorter timeframes of 20-25 years.
• Factor in economic dependence on coal - Major coal exporters and countries where coal accounts for a large share of electricity may need more time to transition their economies and energy systems.
• Assess the pace of renewable energy deployment - Nations that can rapidly scale up renewables and alternative energy sources can potentially phase out coal more quickly.
• Account for the status of existing coal power plants - Countries with young fleets of coal plants may reasonably need until the end of useful life before full phase-out (typically 40 years).
• Allow time to build technical capacity - Transforming energy systems requires developing workforce skills and institutions to manage the transition.     This may necessitate 5-10 years.
• Provide financial and technological support - Industrialized nations and international institutions can accelerate coal phase-outs by offering funding, equipment, and knowledge transfer.
• Set progressive milestones - Transition plans can have interim targets for retiring older plants, scaling up renewables, reducing coal dependency,     etc. rather than focusing only on the end date.
• Review timeframes periodically - Regular reviews allow adjusting phase-out timelines per changing capabilities and conditions.

With supportive policies and international collaboration, a 30-40 year timeframe for a full coal phase-out may be realistic for many developing countries. But flexibility based on national circumstances is prudent.

Potentially Reasonable Arguments for Banning Fossil Fuel

• Puts direct economic pressure on fossil fuel companies through reduced consumer demand. This provides a strong incentive for companies to shift business models toward renewable energy.
• Raises public awareness of the climate and environmental impact of products made from fossil fuels. Personal consumption choices are linked to larger issues.
• Signals the seriousness and commitment of activists. Willingness to accept personal inconvenience shows the strength of convictions.
• Incremental step towards the larger goal of phasing out fossil fuels. Consumer boycotts don't solve the problem alone but contribute as part of a broader strategy.

Potentially Questionable Aspects

• Very difficult currently for ordinary consumers to avoid all products directly/indirectly associated with fossil fuels given their pervasive role in manufacturing and transport. Requires major lifestyle changes.
• The limited actual impact on reducing fossil fuel production and emissions in the near term. Most consumer-driven reductions are negligible compared to overall use.
• Potentially seen as a form of virtue signalling with limited real sacrifice. Easier to make symbolic gestures like boycotting certain products versus structurally changing energy systems.
• Backlash if forced too aggressively without alternatives readily available. Could be perceived as elitist and detrimental to lower-income consumers.
• Distracts focus from larger policy changes and technological solutions needed to truly transition from fossil fuels. Consumer Action is likely insufficient on its own.

Overall there are reasonable motives but also criticisms. As with any protest tactic, assessing reasonableness depends on context, goals, and execution. A balanced approach may be more constructive, but seems unlikely for some of those anti-fossil protestors who do not wish to think this through and are focused on the campaign warrior strategy and recognition on social media. I say please go to China, go to India, go to South East Asia and protest those governments. Also please let us know what you have done to remove and ween yourself entirely off fossil fuels. You just may inspire a whole new generation to live off-grid like you... however, I suspect the truth is that like the champagne socialists of the 1990s, the hypocrisy of ideals versus behavior and performance signalling acts are more for show and bolstering self-image rather than sincere commitment and intelligent conversation.

This article isn't to say I'm anti 'anti-fossil fuel protestors'. It is to say please know the facts, debate all angles of the argument and do not assume to know. Fossil fuels afford you the time to think, so that you do not have to be a hunter-gather. Please use that time to fully do the research and to argue your case. There is a big world out there and it's not always about you and your thought for the day.