Hmmm...seems like this comment thread is also being flooded by fossil fuels lobbyists as well, which really helps make the case about how such moves are designed to suppress discussion not facilitate it at COP28. Do drug dealers have a perspective and should be given a seat at the table when discussing how to manage drug abuse in our cities and country? Or can I distinguish between legitimate use of medications and drug abuse without their input?
Rebuttals to articles like this typically rely on the traditional straw man argument that without the fossils we'll all revert to hunter-gatherer, cave-dwelling status. Indeed, that was the explicit argument put forth by Sultan Al Jaber in his famous interview where he claimed there is no science behind the idea that we need to phase out the fossils.
Five years ago I repeated a statement I had read a few years earlier: that there were something like 500 new coal-fired power plants across the world in various stages of development, " because coal is the cheapest and fastest way to produce electricity" for energy-starved, developing countries. I was corrected by the gentleman with whom I was conversing, who told me that solar had then overtaken coal as being the "cheapest, fastest" way to produce electricity. That is even more true today.
The fossils are correct about one thing: technology is rapidly improving our ability to provide energy to a rapidly growing population; they are incorrect, however, on what that technology will provide. While they are insistent that technology will provide a means for humans to continue to burn fossils and allow them to maintain their profits, instead technology will provide a way for us to wean ourselves from this 'dirty energy.'
So, yeah - the greedy bastards want to keep their profits even if it means destroying the planet's ability to sustain life. Pretty simple, really.
Great question, and one I see often. It's all about energy storage systems, which have been in use for a very long time. As we know, there is a high demand for electricity at some times and low demand at other times - for example, during a heat wave there is a strong demand for electricity to power lots of air conditioners, and of course at night there is a strong demand for electricity to power our lights.
Energy management systems control this ebb & flow of energy, using an expansive grid that allows energy to flow back & forth as needed and/or some form of energy storage system. Energy storage can be as simple as a battery, like the ones we use to power our starters for the internal combustion engines in most of our cars, or as complex as the gigantic Pumped Storage Pond near the shore of Lake Michigan, near Ludington. In that facility, built around 1970, water is pumped from Lake Michigan into an elevated pond during times of low energy usage and then during high demand the water is released to drain back into the lake - flowing through turbines to produce electricity along the way. According to the power company's website, "It’s been called one of the world’s biggest electric batteries."
Most countries in Africa do not have the sort of complex grid of power lines that we have here in the US, and that exist in most developed nations. So several enterprising companies are providing small to medium-sized, self-contained systems for small villages and individual homes all over the African continent. These systems include solar panels, batteries, and computerized control systems that allow folks to have lights at night, power to recharge electronic devices, and perhaps a refrigerator or other appliance - completely independent of any power lines. These companies also provide innovative means for families and villages to finance these installations, so more people can afford them.
Whether a small, independent solar grid providing power to a home or village, or a large array connected to a vast energy network, designed to replace a coal-fired power plant, solar energy is currently the least expensive way to generate electricity. And there is the added bonus that it does so without warming the planet.
With respect… I beg to differ with your position on technical grounds…
Wind and Solar technology has its place in a small way for remote off grid situations such as the villages you mentioned to stop them burning wood and dung for heath reasons.. Or remote parts of the developed world, and these installs do exist but always with a gas generator at the back of that shack in the woods 😊 as W&S are intermittent and always attract significant need for backup using fossil fuel technology.
Most of the W&S installs would not happen without substantial subsidies.. so careful about the so-called cost argument….. just not true that W&S is cost effective.
Battery storage is just not an option due to scientific inefficiencies and the added expense… unless the laws of physics change....
The energy pond you mention is ok as a neat last resort backup but the pump energy needed to move that water uphill will exhaust any reasonable solar or wind array.. and of course that assumes you have the real estate for all this stuff.
The other big reason W&S is not a future solution in a modern society is it will attract a mining activity far worse on the environment than any coal or oil or gas solution.. that even assumes we can build the massive mining capacity in the first place. Same goes for EVs by the way..
The other thing of which is clear is that you will not be running any modern manufacturing with W&S any time soon.. that will require coal or Natural gas or I hope nuclear if you are lucky or smart.
Of course you can offshore your manufacturing ..but I bet the carbon footprint will go up with the offshore use of coal and all those transport ships polluting the oceans..
Thanks for your reply. I can't disagree that transitioning away from fossils will be challenging; of course it will be. But that wasn't the point of the article these comments are attached to - the point of the article is that the fossils are doing all they can to maintain their profits in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are destroying our planet's ability to support life. If you disagree with the findings of the top climate scientists in the world (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/), and the evidence that we see every day, then we would have a very difficult time finding a list of agreed-upon premises on which to have a productive discussion.
If you read my article attached to my earlier response you will see that I have deep concerns about the integrity of the IPCC, and so should you. A blind acceptance of the policy side of their reports is very dangerous as the scientific side of the report is far more conservative toward any suggestions of a panic emergency.
We know have a lot of scientific data points that supports a firm scientific suggestion that CO2 is not a main driver of the climate and no mitigation is needed. Some adaption to a naturally warming planet is required but we have plenty of time to react with better technologies that will certainly include even more use of cleaner Fossil fuels as they will always be a big part of the solution even though nuclear is a firm alternative in some applications... forget the other solutions such as W&S and EVs they are a fad.
The environmental data does not show any statistical trend showing worse climatic conditions that we cannot adapt too, and this will be a far lower cost solution than any mitigation that will be a huge and painful journey that we don’t need to take.
Take a look at my article… plenty of support for this position.
You've certainly presented what appears on the surface to be a compelling argument. But as with most conflicts between what appear to be two compelling arguments that are in direct conflict with one another, for an individual like me it boils down to a simple choice: do I choose to accept the consistent, peer-reviewed findings of the top climate scientists on the planet, supported by observable events? Or do I choose to believe a business consultant who does a great job of linking to various, seemingly authoritative websites? Like the vast majority of readers I'm neither a climate scientist nor one who has the time, energy and expertise to conduct months and years of proper research to settle the matter. So, I rely on available facts, logic, and a fundamental trust in the acknowledged experts in the field.
I've made my decision, and I'm quite comfortable with it. If & when I find the time and inclination to dig more deeply into your arguments, I may do so. But nothing I've seen yet offers a powerful enough reason to abandon my position.
Thank you for this full accounting of the fossil fuel industries influence. Genuinely exceptional work!
I don't have anything to add other than to say I hate the argument from fossil fuel experts are the energy policy experts and so their presence at summits like this are not just important but necessary.
And it is such bullshit. Not only does being in the business of exploiting fossil fuels NOT make someone automatically an expert in broad society wide energy policy, fossil fuel companies are in fact pretty fucking bad at it. Multiple events in the recent past have proven that, Texas immediately comes to mind.
Sorry for the language lol but this argument from fossil fuel companies is especially aggravating to me since there are so many actual energy experts who aren't employees of fossil fuel companies that deserve to be recognized by world leaders, instead of fossil fuel companies.
Thank you for this excellent summary of the history and current situation. When fossil corporations are larger and more powerful than some countries, giving them a seat at the table with actual government representatives doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity and the earth. I’m thankful for the dedicated and persistent activists.
good thing it’s not. if you looked at the list from the source these are reps from companies that supply or are dependent on fossil fuels, like BP or United Airlines. They’re at cop 28 to delay, distract, and disrupt any solutions other than those that allow business as usual.
thanks for the update and your take of COP28. Maybe the best course of action would be for those serious about bringing about the transition to green energy not show up and reveal the truth: the rediculousness of just a bunch of green washers at the confereence. If you invite foxs into the chicken coop.....the chickens -if they be smart- would not show up. Same with CO28. *protest instead of comply*
COP 28 … Maybe still a crazy reality show….. but at least more reality for all!…
We hear complaints from the climate emergency advocates about the attendance at COP28 by the fossil resource sectors and even concerns about the event organizers agenda..
Putting aside that the whole COP thing is an overblown event devoid of any real purpose other than to allow the so called climate elites to virtue signal.. It is appropriate for all sides of the climate change argument to be present.
If the climate emergency activist cannot tolerate input from all sides of the very important argument that will effect EVERYONE on the planet then we must draw the conclusion that their scientific case that we have a climate emergency is weak.
Its high time for a much more open discussion on the UN climate emergency agenda that quite frankly is biased toward politics rather than science and is clearly unrealistic.
The oil and gas lobbyists have a reasonable and righteous purpose to be present as they represent the current ability of our civilization to survive and thrive and they serve the bulk of the population as we are all customers of their technology and without them, we would be back in the dark ages.
A good study for all of us would be to visualize a world without the use of fossil resources...It would mean …. No fuel, No plastics, No modern medicine, No internet, No modern manufacturing, No modern buildings, No food to feed the existing size of population... and much more life limiting essentials not mentioned.
We should welcome the dialogue and the balanced reality to ensure we get the climate change science and the associated policies correct.
Its now time for a truthful Scientific review….
It’s clear from the d growing level of scientific dissent that the climate science is far from settled, and the realization by many that even if NetZero were necessary, the policy solutions are highly unworkable and its clear that the current NetZero goals and plans are grossly unrealistic and place the whole global population into a prosperity and sustainability panic mode that is highly dangerous and irresponsible...
The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without the current political subjugation or confinement of the truth.
This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.
This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.
The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.
It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.
The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.
What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.
I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.
Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.
This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.
Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.
This all-or-nothing thinking is a meaningless distraction. The whole point of the COP meetings is for humanity to come together and hash out a realistic transition plan. Clean energy technologies are rapidly developing, despite what the fossil fuel industry says or does. Their #1 reason for being at the table and spreading disinformation and lies is greed. There will be compromises and trade-offs but this living in caves thing is nonsense.
You claim you want to bring humanity together but exclude people who question your cause. Where does your food come from? How do you prepare it? How do you stay warm in winter? More deaths come from cold than heat. How about your medicines and clothes? Without fossil fuels you are condemning society to living standards from feudal days.
It's a matter of intent. To say that fossil execs "question" a "cause" is to equate their position with that of policymakers and activists, when their intent is primarily to perpetuate profits for a few powerful people, at the expense of many less-powerful. When we have proof that particular human activities cause direct (present) and indirect (future) harm, the rational course is to evaluate safer alternatives and, together, chart a course forward that includes phasing out the harmful activities. Of course we are all implicated. Of course we are all trapped in the current system. And of course the alternatives aren't perfect. We know better, and we need to continue to do better. Similar to the ozone layer, similar to smoking. It's not like we haven't corrected course before. When we come together for the good of all, there's nothing humans can't do.
Also, please read Jeff Goodell's book, "The Heat Will Kill You First" before you claim that more deaths come from cold than heat. Get the facts correct.
The expression shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind… by blindly demonizing our main fuel sources that have powered our modern civilization that has been instrumental in the unprecedented population growth in one life time..
I like and believe the notion that as humans we can do anything if we put our mind to it..
But it does requires the use of our minds and scientific logic not religion as we must also deal in reality not just spirit of intent.
The reality is ..
More than ever before dispute exists at the scientific level that we have a climate emergency that requires any mitigation, although some adaptation may be needed. God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason… so its time for listening to the experts (even more so if they disagree) not a blind shouting game.
NetZero is proving to be a very unrealistic goal with punishing implications for the prosperity and livability of many on the planet… so time for very measured response….. not panic.
The definition of so-called green technology is in dispute… some so-called green technologies are worse than the so-called dirty ones.
Climate panic is the nature of the UN rhetoric, and this will not serve us well.
Shame .....you seem to be having big trouble with facts and reality.... but I wont upset you by questioning your religious beliefs… but try this.. Climate Quiz - CO2 Coalition https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
Hmmm...seems like this comment thread is also being flooded by fossil fuels lobbyists as well, which really helps make the case about how such moves are designed to suppress discussion not facilitate it at COP28. Do drug dealers have a perspective and should be given a seat at the table when discussing how to manage drug abuse in our cities and country? Or can I distinguish between legitimate use of medications and drug abuse without their input?
Rebuttals to articles like this typically rely on the traditional straw man argument that without the fossils we'll all revert to hunter-gatherer, cave-dwelling status. Indeed, that was the explicit argument put forth by Sultan Al Jaber in his famous interview where he claimed there is no science behind the idea that we need to phase out the fossils.
Five years ago I repeated a statement I had read a few years earlier: that there were something like 500 new coal-fired power plants across the world in various stages of development, " because coal is the cheapest and fastest way to produce electricity" for energy-starved, developing countries. I was corrected by the gentleman with whom I was conversing, who told me that solar had then overtaken coal as being the "cheapest, fastest" way to produce electricity. That is even more true today.
The fossils are correct about one thing: technology is rapidly improving our ability to provide energy to a rapidly growing population; they are incorrect, however, on what that technology will provide. While they are insistent that technology will provide a means for humans to continue to burn fossils and allow them to maintain their profits, instead technology will provide a way for us to wean ourselves from this 'dirty energy.'
So, yeah - the greedy bastards want to keep their profits even if it means destroying the planet's ability to sustain life. Pretty simple, really.
So how much power do get at night from solar? When you answer that question see what the cost of your solar power is.
Great question, and one I see often. It's all about energy storage systems, which have been in use for a very long time. As we know, there is a high demand for electricity at some times and low demand at other times - for example, during a heat wave there is a strong demand for electricity to power lots of air conditioners, and of course at night there is a strong demand for electricity to power our lights.
Energy management systems control this ebb & flow of energy, using an expansive grid that allows energy to flow back & forth as needed and/or some form of energy storage system. Energy storage can be as simple as a battery, like the ones we use to power our starters for the internal combustion engines in most of our cars, or as complex as the gigantic Pumped Storage Pond near the shore of Lake Michigan, near Ludington. In that facility, built around 1970, water is pumped from Lake Michigan into an elevated pond during times of low energy usage and then during high demand the water is released to drain back into the lake - flowing through turbines to produce electricity along the way. According to the power company's website, "It’s been called one of the world’s biggest electric batteries."
Most countries in Africa do not have the sort of complex grid of power lines that we have here in the US, and that exist in most developed nations. So several enterprising companies are providing small to medium-sized, self-contained systems for small villages and individual homes all over the African continent. These systems include solar panels, batteries, and computerized control systems that allow folks to have lights at night, power to recharge electronic devices, and perhaps a refrigerator or other appliance - completely independent of any power lines. These companies also provide innovative means for families and villages to finance these installations, so more people can afford them.
Whether a small, independent solar grid providing power to a home or village, or a large array connected to a vast energy network, designed to replace a coal-fired power plant, solar energy is currently the least expensive way to generate electricity. And there is the added bonus that it does so without warming the planet.
With respect… I beg to differ with your position on technical grounds…
Wind and Solar technology has its place in a small way for remote off grid situations such as the villages you mentioned to stop them burning wood and dung for heath reasons.. Or remote parts of the developed world, and these installs do exist but always with a gas generator at the back of that shack in the woods 😊 as W&S are intermittent and always attract significant need for backup using fossil fuel technology.
Most of the W&S installs would not happen without substantial subsidies.. so careful about the so-called cost argument….. just not true that W&S is cost effective.
Battery storage is just not an option due to scientific inefficiencies and the added expense… unless the laws of physics change....
The energy pond you mention is ok as a neat last resort backup but the pump energy needed to move that water uphill will exhaust any reasonable solar or wind array.. and of course that assumes you have the real estate for all this stuff.
The other big reason W&S is not a future solution in a modern society is it will attract a mining activity far worse on the environment than any coal or oil or gas solution.. that even assumes we can build the massive mining capacity in the first place. Same goes for EVs by the way..
The other thing of which is clear is that you will not be running any modern manufacturing with W&S any time soon.. that will require coal or Natural gas or I hope nuclear if you are lucky or smart.
Of course you can offshore your manufacturing ..but I bet the carbon footprint will go up with the offshore use of coal and all those transport ships polluting the oceans..
I can only summarize here so much more on the whole issue at https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism and my Substack.
Thanks for your reply. I can't disagree that transitioning away from fossils will be challenging; of course it will be. But that wasn't the point of the article these comments are attached to - the point of the article is that the fossils are doing all they can to maintain their profits in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are destroying our planet's ability to support life. If you disagree with the findings of the top climate scientists in the world (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/), and the evidence that we see every day, then we would have a very difficult time finding a list of agreed-upon premises on which to have a productive discussion.
Thanks for your clear positioning….
If you read my article attached to my earlier response you will see that I have deep concerns about the integrity of the IPCC, and so should you. A blind acceptance of the policy side of their reports is very dangerous as the scientific side of the report is far more conservative toward any suggestions of a panic emergency.
We know have a lot of scientific data points that supports a firm scientific suggestion that CO2 is not a main driver of the climate and no mitigation is needed. Some adaption to a naturally warming planet is required but we have plenty of time to react with better technologies that will certainly include even more use of cleaner Fossil fuels as they will always be a big part of the solution even though nuclear is a firm alternative in some applications... forget the other solutions such as W&S and EVs they are a fad.
The environmental data does not show any statistical trend showing worse climatic conditions that we cannot adapt too, and this will be a far lower cost solution than any mitigation that will be a huge and painful journey that we don’t need to take.
Take a look at my article… plenty of support for this position.
Also have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfQzMgvfDA&t=611s
You've certainly presented what appears on the surface to be a compelling argument. But as with most conflicts between what appear to be two compelling arguments that are in direct conflict with one another, for an individual like me it boils down to a simple choice: do I choose to accept the consistent, peer-reviewed findings of the top climate scientists on the planet, supported by observable events? Or do I choose to believe a business consultant who does a great job of linking to various, seemingly authoritative websites? Like the vast majority of readers I'm neither a climate scientist nor one who has the time, energy and expertise to conduct months and years of proper research to settle the matter. So, I rely on available facts, logic, and a fundamental trust in the acknowledged experts in the field.
I've made my decision, and I'm quite comfortable with it. If & when I find the time and inclination to dig more deeply into your arguments, I may do so. But nothing I've seen yet offers a powerful enough reason to abandon my position.
Stall tactics or not, the fossil fuels industry's attempts to resist scaling back on production and use of oil are the kind of delay we can't afford.
Thank you for this full accounting of the fossil fuel industries influence. Genuinely exceptional work!
I don't have anything to add other than to say I hate the argument from fossil fuel experts are the energy policy experts and so their presence at summits like this are not just important but necessary.
And it is such bullshit. Not only does being in the business of exploiting fossil fuels NOT make someone automatically an expert in broad society wide energy policy, fossil fuel companies are in fact pretty fucking bad at it. Multiple events in the recent past have proven that, Texas immediately comes to mind.
Sorry for the language lol but this argument from fossil fuel companies is especially aggravating to me since there are so many actual energy experts who aren't employees of fossil fuel companies that deserve to be recognized by world leaders, instead of fossil fuel companies.
Thank you for this excellent summary of the history and current situation. When fossil corporations are larger and more powerful than some countries, giving them a seat at the table with actual government representatives doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity and the earth. I’m thankful for the dedicated and persistent activists.
If the definition of fossil fuel interests is anyone who benefits from their use then all 70,000 COP28 attendees have fossil fuel interests.
good thing it’s not. if you looked at the list from the source these are reps from companies that supply or are dependent on fossil fuels, like BP or United Airlines. They’re at cop 28 to delay, distract, and disrupt any solutions other than those that allow business as usual.
They therefore serve a useful purpose to ensure we don't panic and go off half cocked.
I’m fascinated by the comments here. We do live in interesting times.
thanks for the update and your take of COP28. Maybe the best course of action would be for those serious about bringing about the transition to green energy not show up and reveal the truth: the rediculousness of just a bunch of green washers at the confereence. If you invite foxs into the chicken coop.....the chickens -if they be smart- would not show up. Same with CO28. *protest instead of comply*
COP 28 … Maybe still a crazy reality show….. but at least more reality for all!…
We hear complaints from the climate emergency advocates about the attendance at COP28 by the fossil resource sectors and even concerns about the event organizers agenda..
Putting aside that the whole COP thing is an overblown event devoid of any real purpose other than to allow the so called climate elites to virtue signal.. It is appropriate for all sides of the climate change argument to be present.
If the climate emergency activist cannot tolerate input from all sides of the very important argument that will effect EVERYONE on the planet then we must draw the conclusion that their scientific case that we have a climate emergency is weak.
Its high time for a much more open discussion on the UN climate emergency agenda that quite frankly is biased toward politics rather than science and is clearly unrealistic.
The oil and gas lobbyists have a reasonable and righteous purpose to be present as they represent the current ability of our civilization to survive and thrive and they serve the bulk of the population as we are all customers of their technology and without them, we would be back in the dark ages.
A good study for all of us would be to visualize a world without the use of fossil resources...It would mean …. No fuel, No plastics, No modern medicine, No internet, No modern manufacturing, No modern buildings, No food to feed the existing size of population... and much more life limiting essentials not mentioned.
We should welcome the dialogue and the balanced reality to ensure we get the climate change science and the associated policies correct.
Its now time for a truthful Scientific review….
It’s clear from the d growing level of scientific dissent that the climate science is far from settled, and the realization by many that even if NetZero were necessary, the policy solutions are highly unworkable and its clear that the current NetZero goals and plans are grossly unrealistic and place the whole global population into a prosperity and sustainability panic mode that is highly dangerous and irresponsible...
The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without the current political subjugation or confinement of the truth.
This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.
This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.
The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.
It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.
The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.
What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.
I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.
Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.
This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.
Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.
You obviously don’t understand that without fossil fuels we would be living in caves.
This all-or-nothing thinking is a meaningless distraction. The whole point of the COP meetings is for humanity to come together and hash out a realistic transition plan. Clean energy technologies are rapidly developing, despite what the fossil fuel industry says or does. Their #1 reason for being at the table and spreading disinformation and lies is greed. There will be compromises and trade-offs but this living in caves thing is nonsense.
You claim you want to bring humanity together but exclude people who question your cause. Where does your food come from? How do you prepare it? How do you stay warm in winter? More deaths come from cold than heat. How about your medicines and clothes? Without fossil fuels you are condemning society to living standards from feudal days.
It's a matter of intent. To say that fossil execs "question" a "cause" is to equate their position with that of policymakers and activists, when their intent is primarily to perpetuate profits for a few powerful people, at the expense of many less-powerful. When we have proof that particular human activities cause direct (present) and indirect (future) harm, the rational course is to evaluate safer alternatives and, together, chart a course forward that includes phasing out the harmful activities. Of course we are all implicated. Of course we are all trapped in the current system. And of course the alternatives aren't perfect. We know better, and we need to continue to do better. Similar to the ozone layer, similar to smoking. It's not like we haven't corrected course before. When we come together for the good of all, there's nothing humans can't do.
Also, please read Jeff Goodell's book, "The Heat Will Kill You First" before you claim that more deaths come from cold than heat. Get the facts correct.
The expression shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind… by blindly demonizing our main fuel sources that have powered our modern civilization that has been instrumental in the unprecedented population growth in one life time..
I like and believe the notion that as humans we can do anything if we put our mind to it..
But it does requires the use of our minds and scientific logic not religion as we must also deal in reality not just spirit of intent.
The reality is ..
More than ever before dispute exists at the scientific level that we have a climate emergency that requires any mitigation, although some adaptation may be needed. God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason… so its time for listening to the experts (even more so if they disagree) not a blind shouting game.
NetZero is proving to be a very unrealistic goal with punishing implications for the prosperity and livability of many on the planet… so time for very measured response….. not panic.
The definition of so-called green technology is in dispute… some so-called green technologies are worse than the so-called dirty ones.
Climate panic is the nature of the UN rhetoric, and this will not serve us well.
Nothing blind about it. The scientific evidence is abundantly clear. Assumptions aren’t evidence.
Shame .....you seem to be having big trouble with facts and reality.... but I wont upset you by questioning your religious beliefs… but try this.. Climate Quiz - CO2 Coalition https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/