Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies — Xtrix

That's precisely what's needed and the fact you call it a fantasy is proof in the pudding that we will not resolve it on time. If even the optimists don't believe it will happen, then it certainly won't.

Renewable energy is sustainable. — Xtrix

Wrong. Not at current energy use levels.

Most people here are reflecting an understanding of the issues as we had it 20 years ago.

I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well. — Xtrix

What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average.

So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change...

You could also do a revolution and size power for the people and away from corporations. It's called a democracy.

What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere — Olivier5

:up: Most illuminating.

even the optimists don't believe it will happen — Benkei

Uh oh! We're in thick soup!

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway. — Xtrix

All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels. Fuck cars and the idea that individual transportation should be a thing. Prohibit them in cities and large towns and invest in public transportation. Lawnmowers? You can mow by hand, which also require a lot less maintenance as they rarely break down. Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective.

Building strong unions — Xtrix

But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way.

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. — Xtrix

Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way.


I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it.

The problem runs far deeper than just consumer choices or unionism. It's about the people we've become.

Could the anti-climate-change efforts eventually see a parallel to the anti-pandemic/mask/vaccine movement?

I really understand their anger. The farmers are also angry because they say, ‘we are the only sector who get all the blame.’ What about industry? What about the traffic? Maybe we should just ban all the cars in the Netherlands because they also emit nitrogen. This plan as announced in practice means that, in certain areas, farmers have to reduce their nitrogen emissions by 70%. That means they simply have to quit. — Marcel Crok

This is literally communism. If the state says, ‘we are going to take your private property away for the sake of a greater good,’ then the state has the prerogative to create crises to strip you of your rights. That's what's happening here. This will definitely affect ordinary civilians. It's part of a global agenda, so everyone around the world, especially Western countries, should be aware that this is something that is not just about the Dutch government. This is part of the ‘2030 agenda,’ this is part of the ‘great reset.’ — Eva Vlaardingerbroek

It is not very rational to curb the Dutch agriculture if you realize that they have the highest production per acre in the world and therefore the environmental load per kilogram food is lower than elsewhere. So, in a sense Dutch agriculture is a benefit for climate as well as biodiversity. — Simon Rozendaal

Similar protests could soon happen in the U.K. and parts of the European Union where natural gas and energy costs are near historic levels.
The issue is that despite this growing energy crisis in Europe, some governments still prioritize the climate agenda which makes energy ever more expensive, or which forces farmers to close their farms because that is the top priority, still, for a number of governments. This whole green agenda is causing huge burdens.
The Dutch are driven mad by these policies because it's killing their businesses and the farmers are fighting back big time.
This is what's going to happen all over Europe. I have no doubt that, come winter and millions of families can't heat their homes or pay their bills anymore, that there will be unrest all over Europe. — Benny Peiser

All we had to do to prevent climate change was to follow Aristotle's advice: aureum mediocritas (the golden mean) or nec quid nimis (nothin' to excess). These simple rules, if followed in the right way, would have worked like a charm - no wars, no global warming, no poverty, no nothin'!

Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.

Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws — Agent Smith

This is actually pretty smart, and an antidote to what progressive kids from wealty or academical families tends to go on about, wanting working people to make their lives worse:

When you talk about our human nature, count me out. I just love lying in my bed reading stuff. Pandemics learned me to keep myself fit without any gyms and shite. I also work a lot from home and did not give my kids car rides to sport activities.

Be lazy, philosopize, read and watch the sunsets. That way you have a rich inner life and do not spend so much power.

The upper class kids, also those getting progressive and having environment things are really the driving force for the opposite. I’ve seen it plenty since i made the class journey from daytime work environments to a pretty area where all houses are nice. And getting to know a lot of people in the uni town I live in now - the class divider is all these life expectancies. Where I grew up noone really had any projects, plans for whatever. One was sorted into whatever one seemed to do well in and did it.

Where I live now all kids have all these projects. My own daughter claims to be an environmentist, leftist, everything ist but what did she do… go around the world, and she did not take the bicycle.

The gordian knot is to relax. And the guys that are born energetic can use that energy to invent smart solar cells, fusion power or whatever. We get happier and save the planet at the same time.

Pretty seriously.

Well, assuming you're not being sarcastic, the rule is rather simple: If anyone says "you're too blah blah blah" it's time to do a systems check!

Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem.

Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem. — Olivier5

Well, you're correct! There's a very good reason why the synonym for foreigners is aliens - we could as well be living on different planets, that's how different we are.

good grief

Wrong. Not at current energy use levels. — Benkei

Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.

As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.

That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand.

It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines. — Bitter Crank

This says it all— yes indeed.

That's precisely what's needed — Benkei

But it isn’t. At least in my view. If I’m naive, and that’s truly what’s needed — then yes, we’re probably doomed. In that case we should immediately take up arms.

It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread.

The situation is hopeless in terms of the damages already done ... which most people are unaware of.

The situation is also hopeless in terms of avoiding significant further damages that are simply now physically unavoidable.

We are currently in a global famine, caused by climate change and socio-political disruptions arguably themselves also related to climate change not helping stability as well as direct resource competition.
— Xtrix

I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway. — Xtrix

This is not my message.

You completely ignore the part where I explain my view that doing whatever we can, as effectively as we can, is a moral imperative, regardless of the likely outcome.

Furthermore, I made it clear I viewed extinction as highly unlikely and everything we do now has significant impact on where the environmental and social damage eventually plays out.

Which I'm sure on a "philosophical level" you agree with.

What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it).

The reality is simply that it's no longer 40 years ago where obvious, easy to implement policies (stop subsidising fossil, start internalising its true costs ... which society pays anyways a long list of, not just climate change!) could have easily avoided the current crisis.

It's not even 20 yeas ago when I got full time into working on climate change, where bold but feasible actions, again, would have avoided the current crisis.

The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.

I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.

That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action. — Xtrix

Yes, I agree we are only really debating emphasis.

Which, I gave my view on the "hope" question because I was asked specifically that.

However, to act effectively requires a clear understanding of the situation, this is where maybe there are genuine differences.

An optimal plan depends on the effective-time and resources-over-time available.

Decades ago, the actions required were obvious and there was time to implement the policies in a gradual way.

I would argue that is no longer the case, and we are in a much more urgent situation, and "exactly how urgent" does matter in the calculus of optimum strategy.

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well. — Xtrix

What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average. — Olivier5

Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough.

So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change... — Olivier5

That's why I mentioned strike-ready supermajorities. Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? If they do strike, but simply don't do so in the necessary industries for climate-related legislation, that too is a problem -- and one we have in the US as well.

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
— Xtrix

All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels. — Benkei

It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.

In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive.

Fuck cars and the idea that individual transportation should be a thing. Prohibit them in cities and large towns and invest in public transportation. — Benkei

Yes. Congestion pricing and even increasing bike-paths is a step in this direction, but the best choice is investing in better public transportation.

Lawnmowers? You can mow by hand, which also require a lot less maintenance as they rarely break down. — Benkei

Good point -- I regret I didn't include it.

Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective. — Benkei

Yeah, heat pumps aren't a panacea. They don't work in very areas that get very cold, and often you'll need fossil fuel back-up. But in warmer areas they work very well, and are becoming much less expensive and more efficient. A much better choice than oil and gas, even if for the immediate health benefits. But yes, for maximal impact they should be coupled with solar panels -- no doubt.

I'm emphasizing electrifying on the individual level because it will be much easy to decarbonize the electric grid down the road if we start now. Right now, of course, electricity is still mostly generated by natural gas/coal in the US (about 60%). Electricity, combined with transportation, accounts for more than half of all emissions. If you include some commercial and residential emissions (heating and cooling), then then you're over 60% of all emissions. That's mainly the focus, in my view.

Industry (steel, cement, etc) and agriculture are harder. I suppose consuming less meat, and consuming less generally, is a good idea for individuals.

Building strong unions
— Xtrix

But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way. — Isaac

But we have. We're currently in the middle of a surge, in fact. At least in the US.

Regardless, I think the problem is often the very idea -- that's been beaten out of people's heads. Lots of propaganda against unions. It's also other obstacles -- like how difficult employers have made unionization.

Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way. — Isaac

I'm really not seeing the point here. The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who?

What's in the way could very much be the ideas. That seems to be the case, in fact. There are many other obstacles as well even after the ideas are accepted.

People already know and are not doing it.

The problem runs far deeper than just consumer choices or unionism. It's about the people we've become. — Isaac

What we've become is despairing, polarized, confused, and angry. That's not an accident. But yes, that's a situation to be overcome.

What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it). — boethius

No, I took issue with the emphasis. It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy. I see a lot of this going on right now because of Manchin's obstruction, and I think it should be tempered.

Yes, I agree we are only really debating emphasis. — boethius

:up:

It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy. — Xtrix

This is the disagreement.

The reality is whatever it is and understanding it as best we can is essential (accounting for different perspectives, limitations of our senses and analysis and all that).

A really large amount of effort was spent in the 90s "softening the blow" to society realising this incredible threat and its danger.

Many in the environmental movement bought into this fossil fuel propaganda of making the message more palpable for people to process. The argument was that if people believed it wasn't so bad, no "alarmism" then A. scientists wouldn't be accused of alarmism and B. starting at least some actions would be easier.

However, the water-down-the-danger strategy simply resulted in Kyoto just being a completely ineffective thing, whatever it was.

This was mixed with a lot of corruption, such as creating monetary conflicts of interest for everyone involved including the environmental movement insofar as possible (aka. bribes), but "rational" people need to be able to rationalise their corruption, and the soften-the-blow strategy, people need to have a not-so-alarming message, was the essential mental mechanism to do that. People then quickly believe their own propaganda, that there really was more time, "a hundred years".

The scientists that refused and activists that refused to get onboard the softy-slowly-wobbly-train (basically an alliance with fossil fuels who were going to "invest" in green energy, beyond petroleum and all that) were then just pushed out of the media (due to insane levels of corruption there; journalism quality was way different in the 90s and the denialism industry had not yet really been created, as the strategy of the 70 - 80s was "we need more research" which accepts the rationalists framework, and so setup the "research is done to justify action" in the 90s, which there was not yet a network of just zany anti-rationalist, anti-science denialism).

The big environmental organisations got behind "biofuels" so that people wouldn't need to contemplate driving less, even though the science is clear that biofuels cannot possibly displace any significant amount of fossil fuels, competes with food and wilderness, and public transportation and in particular trains are the ecological transport solution (had USA started a high speed rail network in the 90s, it would be now reaping the same benefits China is now getting).

Now, what was the obvious truth back then?

The obvious truth is that even with the "rosy models" approach, the risks were still clearly insanely high. A political standard had been created (by the fossil industry) that 30% risk of total catastrophe (extreme climate change) was acceptable.

The non-corrupt scientists continued to point out that such a political standard was insane, biofuels a fools errand and not only delays effective actions but makes the problem worse by encouraging more car culture, that by the time we feel the consequences of climate change a large amount of damage will be locked in due to the momentum of the system as well as such effects will cause political and social costs and instability which makes effective actions even harder.

Most of all, the obvious truth the now marginalised scientists continued to explain, was that's it's completely insane to continue to not only ignore not only the climate costs but all the other costs to society of fossil fuel use (in particular cars) on health and ecosystems and just inefficiencies compared to public transport and intercity rail, but continue to subsidise fossil fuels and develop even dirtier fossil fuel extraction methods! and that the policy of stopping the subsidies and internalising even non-climate related costs is by definition a net benefit to society in itself (society is paying those costs through taxes and costly harms ... just not at the gas pump).

So, in short, the "don't be too alarming" play and its consequences has already played out before, fossil consumption went up like business as usual, the critical infrastructure projects that take decades to build didn't happen.

Now we're fucked.

That's the simple truth.

People need to accept that we're fucked (in my opinion) to start understanding and dealing with the situation.

The "it's not so bad, not so alarming, we have time" argument worked when things still seemed normal and we didn't feel any consequences.

The older generations went from being concerned, clearly an issue governments should sort out, another of a long list of frightening pollution issues that need to be solved ... to "I'll be dead by then!!" Older people absolutely loved saying this.

I remember hearing all my older extended family joking about this around the Christmas and thanks giving table etc. And I remember the burning anger and "they know not what they do; the fucking bastards" impression it gave.

The greatest trick the devil ever played, was convincing the baby boomers global warming didn't concern them as they'd be long dead before the disastrous impacts. Also something about markets and progress and whatever.

Now people feel the consequences, are extremely anxious about, wondering how we got here and where exactly here is.

They need to hear the truthful message: We. Are. Fucked.

As, that's what corresponds to their actual experience. People can sense that we're fucked.

What now? Yes, that's the followup question, but the followup question to accepting that we're fucked.

Global famine is here. I wrote (as many others) about that being a "big moment" of global destabilisation and we need to act before such things start to happen, to avoid being fucked, 20 years ago.

Analysis was correct then, correct now, and now that global famine is upon us the conclusion of such analysis, that we're fucked, also remains true.

Of course, actions can make us less rather than more fucked, and we should do what we can.

Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.

As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.

That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand. — Xtrix

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production, anything beyond that and you get black outs. Renewables will cause much larger shifts and we don't have adequate battery technology to store the necessary energy to fill in the gaps. (That's not to say there aren't hopeful developments in this area).

It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.

In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive. — Xtrix

Yes, standards of living, excuse my English but you understood what I meant. And not just the US, every country in Europe.

But we have. We're currently in the middle of a surge, in fact. At least in the US. — Xtrix

Well then problem solved. Good job... Cup of tea?

Lots of propaganda against unions. — Xtrix

True. So remove the propaganda? But that seems obvious too, I'm sure activists have already thought of that. So why haven't they been able to. What's in the way?

The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who? — Xtrix

No, the problem isn't with the idea (read my quote again). If everyone already knows the idea but isn't doing anything in accordance with it, then something else must be in the way. Just telling them the idea a second time clearly isn't going to do anything.

Everyone already knows about climate change. everyone already knows we should use electric cars, solar panels, less in general, go vegetarian, plant a tree... They just don't. So what's stopping them? Clearly it's not that they haven't been told what to do.

There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production, anything beyond that and you get black outs. Renewables will cause much larger shifts and we don't have adequate battery technology to store the necessary energy to fill in the gaps. (That's not to say there aren't hopeful developments in this area). — Benkei

Natural gas being needed to "transition" to keep the grid stable (basically only hydro and gas can react to variations from renewable energy, and hydro is generally maxed out pretty much everywhere), as I've written about in previous posts.

However, the problem is actually even worse than even you describe above, since if you want to move from fossil to electric cars and trucks, now the grid needs to be expanded even more to power these systems.

Just an additional point to add to the de-growth requirement.

However, I don't think for Europe and US a voluntary de-growth is now feasible, but it will happen involuntarily. President of the EU telling member states to cut gas consumption by 15% is already manifestation of that process.

What is interesting to focus on is the other half of get people to a 1950's level, which means growing the economy for billions of poor people.

If that is done with renewable energy (the mythical leap frog), and in a profoundly different way to aping Western society (no cars, local living, local working, gardens, etc. which is easy to do in areas of the world that are still rural) then it could actually just keep going in terms of developing and surpass not only 1950's but even our Western standard of living.

For, if you had a truly renewable and local based economy with significant renewable energy access and highly educated, which costs little resources to share knowledge, using mostly solar, then you'd have pretty much all the benefits of Western technology without the downsides of pollution, urban anonymity, commuting, stupid jobs, homelessness, etc.

It would still consume way less resources and so be smaller if resource throughput is the measure of economy (or GDP essentially a proxy for resource throughput), but quality of life can be far higher than even middle class Western standards today.

However, I don't think for Europe and US a voluntary de-growth is now feasible, but it will happen involuntarily. President of the EU telling member states to cut gas consumption by 15% is already manifestation of that process. — boethius

Just tuning your heating system can get you these cuts, factory presets are generally wasteful. But nobody really knows that and installers know but don't take the time to do it. You'll have to separately make a 300 eur appointment for "hydronic balancing", which is actually easy and something your granny could do.

Then there's the ridiculous law in the Netherlands that requires potable water from heating systems to be heated to at least 60 degrees because of fear of legionellabacteria, while next door Germany happily heats it to only 50. That saves a ton too. So I broke a law as well.

Using less gas would be easy actually if people were made aware and supported with these kind of energy saving tips but I had to learn it from my dad for some weird ass reason. And he knew because he built refineries for a living.

Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough. — Xtrix

And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize, or they would have started doing so a long time ago not to emperil the human race.

Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? — Xtrix

The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.

The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming. — Olivier5

Not so sure about that. At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.

Apparently Manchin was really buddy buddy with the coal miners, or at least trying to be, seeing as he's a coal baron and all. Kind of wonder how they feel about him now that he's shown himself to be playing games for the past year and a half over legislation that would've helped them transition to other jobs. Those coal jobs aren't coming back, and the coal industry in the US is dying, no matter who is in charge of the White House. They seem to understand that but I guess that's just Manchin looking out for his constituents.

At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better. — Mr Bee

The concerns of miners, as described in the article you posted, and the reasons why they support the BBB bill have nothing to see with climate change: they are naturally about pensions, healthcare and jobs. They are not going to go on strike to save the planet.

They're also not gonna furiously defend coal either like your last post implied. Like you said, they care about employment, and they're perfectly fine with clean jobs just so long as they have them, which was why they wanted the manufacturers creating new jobs in their coalfields.

They have and continue to defend coal.

And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize — Olivier5

Which is irrelevant.

There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming. — Olivier5

There’s every reason to believe it in fact.

If everyone already knows the idea but isn't doing anything in accordance with it, then something else must be in the way. — Isaac

Everyone already knows about climate change — Isaac

That’s really not true.

Of those who do, I think the problem is powerlessness and hopelessness.

There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production — Benkei

We need new transmission lines and power plants, yes. The grid needs updating to handle larger electric loads. What’s the point?

Here is my local hydro storage facility. a grid scale mechanical battery completed in 1984 and operating ever since. If you have a couple of lakes at different levels pumping water up to the higher one stores the energy. The grid can be maintained with a variety of energy storage systems along with a good diversity of generation systems. Tidal is intermittent but reliable for instance. It's all perfectly doable with some adjustment of lifestyle, particularly in single use, planned obsolescence, and private travel facilities.

It doesn't happen because the all too visible hand of the wealthy rules, and automation has reached the point that the economic value of a peasant is now negative. Therefore it is the human population that is in line for recycling first, and then the green revolution will be much easier and will largely take care of itself.