Environment & Energy

They're just changing bait. They don't give a shit about the climate but since it's all the rage and governments are handing out "green" subsidies and tax credits like Halloween candy, time to jump in.

And as to they whom you mention, as an engineer there's a lot of what he says I agree with (especially when he brings the docs so I can go my own DD). There's a lot of green energy fast sells and falsehood's out there. I adhere to a multi pronged approach moving forward but the most important one that will make the biggest difference in climate change is going to be the hardest one... us.

First of all the planet needs to get to a net -1% number of people per year for the next 100 years just to get us viable and then continue at as high of a negative as we can. We are at the breaking point of the number humans this planet can sustain without going into a massive die off of not just species, of us. We keep pro-creating at this pace to be blunt, we will truly fuck ourselves into oblivion in less than a century. Life however will carry on

Then IF we can do that then we MUST start living 100% completely opposite of the way we are, from our daily habits to damn near everything we think we need to buy, use or eat and how and where we shit. We can miraculously invent something super clean (all the way through the chain, not just the tailpipe or chimney) and efficient, or fusion or even the impossible perpetual energy source tomorrow and it won't matter, we can't go on with this mass consumption model. That's going to require a psychiatric treatment on a Galactic scale, otherwise their will be a massive die off of not just species, of us. But again as the saying goes, life will go on.

Those 2 things are the leading contributors to our emissions delta.

So are we just fucked? Should we just throw our hands in the air? I'd say well kinda and no not quite yet. I think we have a slim chance. So, IMO, immediately we need to take a multifaceted energy approach including nuclear. Sorry, but there's no other way I can see. I've read and read and read on this and at least in the short term (like 100 years minimum) we need to add nuclear to our multifaceted approach. Don't like it, not because it's dangerous (compared to what we do now it's not) but yeah, like others I have a problem with the waste (which we need to stop all waste products of everything as much as possible). That's my only issue with it long term. I have a friend who was a nuke in the Navy and he really sold me on it 40 years ago. Do I want 5 in every state? Hell no, but there are a lot of nuclear options out there that are much safer than they were 60 years ago. Combined with other smart green energy solutions it could buy us some time to address the things above.

We got into this in like 150 years, it's probably going to take us twice that to get out of it if you ask me, we have to slam the brakes on emissions NOW. We need to go net neutral fast, I mean like now fast. And in the process we need to completely move from this mass consumption socioeconomic model.

None of the solutions are easy, they all are going to be painful as hell. And emissions from burning fossil fuels just scratch's the surface. Fossil fuels are in EVERYTHING we touch, eat and breath 24/7. We are ADDICTED. And if you've ever known and addict or maybe even are one (you're addicted to fossil fuels for sure) you know just quitting is the first step. Recovery is a life long process and so it shall be with the human race.

If we want our kids to have a ball of rock they can ride around the Galaxy on we've got no choice IMHO.

Peace and Carrots