Talking about "reducing the demand for FF" is ridiculous in at least four ways:

a) It prevents states in Africa to jumpstart their economies to benefit their citizens with cheap energy systems (resources and power plants), and, via surplus value, become capable in the first place to invest in environmental protection. (Not to forget the #ecocolonialism involved in the vast green land grap in Africa.)

b) It ignores the life cycle of #energy systems because even after a new source of energy has been found and disseminated, the older energy sources keep delivering and *increase* their output. It takes roughly 60 years for a new energy source to substitute and leave behind an older one.

c) It ignores how much FF are involved in the production, the spread, and the integration of "renewable" energy systems in a given #infrastructure: From mining and processing of materials, to production and spreading of units, to the hitherto unsolved problems of recycling of these new systems (and thus "loss" of the engery invested in their production).

d) Even in the sub-sector of electricity production, relying on #renewables means relying on fossil fuels (esp. when #nuclear power is abandoned). As demand increases, #peakrenewables is already in play, only sugarcoated by high subsidies. (Germany alone will have 14,000 wind turbine units of its 30,000 onshore units decommissoned after 2026. Germany will be lucky to keep the current electricity output of the wind turbine units; it rather becomes increasingly harder and less likely that more output will be generated in the future -- at least within a market economy.)

The chatter about "reducing the demand" is the result of an individualist consumer approach, which suggests to cut back on holiday flights etc. With regard to infrastructures of whole societies, that is a mistaken approach.