Right now, somewhere, in a repressive state without freedom of speech and limited rights to protest, some of the richest fossil fuel company owners and oil sheikhs meet with the world leaders, well - except USA and China, the world's biggest polluters - to work on a solution and find out how they can still sell their oil to trick the public.
I mean it won't change anything much, listening or looking away. Just look at the whole conference, it seems pretty clear to me that there is no motivation to change.
If I learned today that the political meeting to solve the problem climate change is being held in a petro state, lead by an oil sheikh and sponsored by companies that have no ambition to change, I would assume that somebody wants to fool me or it's satire.
What I expect is a lot of talk, self love and emphasis on how great we're doing already, some vague ideas and plans and then back to business as usual.
But still, I think the author of this article is right. There is need to show political leaders, that we don't let us get tricked by their green washing and that we demand more, much more action and that we won't accept empty promises!
It's very tiring to just want to live in a world that doesn't kill us while most business men readily kill the climate for profit. And the hope that the future is worth living is fading quickly. But we need to stand up as long as there is a piece of hope left. We'll likely lose this fight, but at least we tried.
They look at habitat loss due to fossil fuel mining and at the impact of acid rain caused by burning fossil fuels and mentioned climate change.
I have a feeling that these numbers could be shadowed when looking at the deaths caused by air pollution from coal plants. But I guess that must be difficult to assess.
Just as if there were politicians, who would before an election say they'd tackle a problem to get more popular, while actually not working on solutions.
The title kinda implies we get to net zero at all.
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that one day on Earth there will be net zero carbon emissions. But will it be because humanity plans to and will work on it or because we screwed things up so badly.
I'm not denying the science, it is mathematically possible and I actually love the science behind it and reading about it.
I just say we are not yet near fusion power, I think. ITER will start experiments probably this decade. After that they plan to build DEMO, a follow up project which will deliver a little power.
Keep in mind that these reactors are very difficult to built, still. It takes decades to build even without delays.
Fusion is a beautiful source of energy, but it'll still take time. I don't think for example that fusion will play a major role in the transition away from fossil fuels as that needs to happen much faster.
Mathematically net positive. As calculating the fusion's released energy versus what was needed to get it there. As far as I know there is no technology yet on how to utilize and extract that energy. So zero kWh produced for now.
Then you still have loss in the generators or turbines. And then it needs to be able to run 24/7 instead of split seconds, which brings the problem of how to add fuel constantly and how to remove the fusion's results.
It might be possible but I doubt we are somewhat near.
The article didn't start bad. But then the author didn't get the right conclusion.
Yes, the current climate data are devastating. Yes, there is also development in some (mostly rich) countries. But to put this into perspective: while the rate of GHG emmissions need to drop faster than they did 2020 during the pandemic, they are just stagnating in developed countries while rising in developing countries. Globally carbon emissions are still rising.
The reality is: the climate is changing faster than anticipated and the transition away from fossil fuels is nowhere near fast enough. We need to stop emitting GHG basically yesterday. Instead we bury the 1.5 °C target and hope for carbon sinks to help us get to net zero. Both natural sinks as also artificial sinks. Artificial sinks are still extremely expensive and ineffective while the remaining natural carbon sinks get destroyed and turn into carbon emitters.
What would need to happen is a massive effort through all society in every country. That would also mean for first world countries to not only forgive debts of poor countries, but also at least help financing poor countries transition.
The majority of people are just starting to take climate change seriously and the threat is still underestimated by most.
No, this is not the time for stubborn optimism.
This is the time for worry. This is the time for anger. This is the time to reject pledges and promises by governments and demand actual action and legislative change. Being optimistic won't help us change.
Pantera - Cowboys From Hell
Fantomas - The Director's Cut
And, not really metal but you asked for just favorite:
Refused - The Shape Of Punk To Come