Thankfully fuels are not clothing accessories, or cars, where people place
artificial subjective values on them.
Also we are not asking the oil refineries to make a moral decision, it will strictly be the numbers.
When it becomes less expensive (for the refinery) to make their own feedstock, rather than pay
to get it out of the ground, they will switch. The change will not occur all at once, as they pay
different prices for their supplies, based on it's source.
I have read quite a few of the technical papers related to AGW, I originally thought
the AGW crowd was saying the additional forcing was an unknown artifact of CO2,
Which was very unlikely.
Peeling away the layers, it became clear that the additional forcing was a collection
of predicted open loop feedback, that they believed would happen.
None of these feedbacks had actually been quantified, but they could happen.
From Baede et al,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
FYI, this paper is where the IPCC gets it's range, and is cited in IPCC 5.
When we look at the instrument evidence for these feedback that
amplify CO2's response, they are small to nonexistent.
there is no extra energy hiding in the deep ocean, or elsewhere,
the energy was not delayed in leaving earth, because the predicted
additional feedback failed to materialize, as a major factor.
We will likely exceed Baede's low range number, but the mid to high range
does not look probable at this point.
Like the curve shows, we have seen about 51% of the direct response of
doubling CO2. Temperatures have increased by .8 °C.
According to the IPCC's key cited source,(and accepted Physics),
that 51% should equal .6 °C of warming. (51% of 1.2°C).
If the additional feedbacks exists, they must be within the remaining .2°C.
no alarm, no panic, warming and sea levels increases,
like humans has been seeing for over 2000 years.