Obviously. Who do you think makes decisions about major shifts in the use of resources? The only people I can think of who have the power to make such decisions are certain corporate executives and national governments.
'World Leaders Are Behaving Like Children,' Greta Thunberg Tells Thousands of Bristol Strikers in Call for More Climate Activism
“Who do you think makes decisions about major shifts in the use of resources?”
If we are talking about energy, then nobody. This industry isn’t some government dictatorship. Our current president is obsessed with coal, yet despite all the reduced regulations and increased financing the industry is still falling. Why? Because it fundamentally cannot compete economically with other energy sources.
Is it because of the natural gas lobby? No. Lobbies will help you get certain policies enacted that can play a role in changes in an industry, but at scale these decisions are minuscule.
Natural gas will continue outperforming coal regardless of policy, because it’s easier to produce, easier to transport, more accessible, used for a wider range of products, and only slightly less in energy density. No amount of government power is going to change this.
Even when it comes to renewables. Yes there have been policies to reduce solar and wind development - does that mean that these industries are dead? No. They are still increasing and will continue to do so. Solar operates in a market that is largely uncompetitive for fossil fuels in the residential electric market. They will eventually dominate production, and regardless of conservative policy this will not change.
While there’s disagreement on the net concentration of renewables in the US portfolio, the majority of even sustainable energy portfolios forecast a majority concentration of renewables. It’s not because they are representative of big renewable, it’s because they recognize the market opportunity of the technology.
We didn’t move from peat to coal because the president decided. We didn’t move from coal to gas because politicians decided. Realistically the major reason we need significant political involvement is because for the first time we are dealing with massive issue that is time dependent, and therefore we need additional incentive to progress society to other technologies. However were not using them just because they emit low emissions. We are using them because they have potential for success.
OK, I have no idea what point(s) you are trying to make. Mine is in comment no. 10 above, and it is essentially the same as Greta’s. the last word is yours; I have no more to say.
Pas de quoi. Thumbing through her small book (No One is Too Small to Make a Difference), as best I can tell she focuses almost entirely on the big picture, as opposed to specific consequences. So do I, but I seem to recall some claims of very high probabilities that certain events were due at least in significant part to AGW. I’ll start keeping a tally. The skeptics will remain skeptical, but it can’t hurt to keep slapping them in the face with evidence. Science can’t prove that any specific event was the result of warming, but the disruptions we have seen are exactly those that science predicts.
On the Climate Emergency:
Corporations (“world leaders”) are behaving “like children”, alright! BUT MORE LIKE “Rosemary’s Baby” the 1968 film! Lol - A “psychology horror film” directed by Roman Polanski!
From Wikipedia: “ The cast features [Mia Farrow], [John Cassavetes], [Ruth Gordon], [Sidney Blackmer], [Maurice Evans], [Ralph Bellamy], [Clay Tanner] and, in his feature film debut, [Charles Grodin]. The film chronicles the story of a pregnant woman who suspects that an evil [cult] wants to take her baby for use in their rituals.”
My point is instead of asking for people to talk about the existence of climate change and yelling that we need a plan - to actually discuss solutions.
You say we have or we know the plans. Great, why aren’t we talking about them.
In scientific and engineering circles the debate is not whether or not climate change exists. The debate is what is the best possible solution. We need to be having this debate in the general public.
Yet when I look out at all these demonstrations and marches I don’t hear a single thing about actual decarbonizarion plans.
These people scream about needing a solution, yet are unwilling to talk about plans that offer a solution. That’s a problem.
I want to get to the point where someone says I support 100% Renewable for x,y,z reasons and we can discuss those reasons and why people don’t support 100% renewable.
I want to have discussions from people that actually know what substitutes exist for petrochemicals instead of just saying we must get off of fossil fuels. Which is better lingocellusic biomass or micro algae conversion?
What alternatives do we have for industrial production - molten salt CSP, high temperature biomass, molten Salt advanced high temperature nuclear?
That’s where we need the bar to be if we are going to be serious about finding solutions to climate change.
You don’t want to talk anymore and that’s fine, but just FYI while these movements have been yelling at world leaders the EU actually launched a plan for achieving 100% Renewable by 2050 and while there are issues with this plan there is actual promise for their idea of interconnected international grid deployments.
Watch this video from Real Engineering for a general understanding of its plans:
Yet have we heard anything from these movements about this plan? No… Here we have actual progress, and these groups are still just talking about how nobody is doing anything.
There are issues with this video in how it explains California’s electricty market role in the US Electrical Grid and rather the lack of clarity that California operates within the Western Interconnection with multiple interconnection managers such as WAPA, CASIO and FERC along with Alberta ISO and the larger North American Electrical Grid with joint collaboration between FERC and NERC. In my opinion the video I have linked above, does far more society than anything Greta or these subsequent argumentative social movements have done for transitioning the energy industry.