Rule or laws are the key point. Not voluntary participation. We should not allow polluting industries to decide their own terms of service
The headline sounds like the rhetoric that a greenwasher would say.
If Tech-Based-Carbon-Removal (TBCR) was practical, scientists who are concerned about climate change would be promoting it.
"We" don't promote TBCR because it's not a scalable solution. The fuel Industries are 'worried' because they know they will one day go out of business. But, for as long as they can get away with it, they promote anything that makes burning their fuels sound 'sustainable'
We can leave it in the ground and it would be crazy to want to "max out oil and gas"
"crazy" as in an obvious sign that some politicians don't understand what the hell they're talking about.
Or to be more polite, they're not listening to the scientific advice because they don't understand the science. George Monbiot thinks some leaders are sociopaths.
However, the fact that #COP28 agreed that fossil fuels need to be phased out, is a big win for humanity (considering)
Vast majority of fossil fuels ‘must stay in ground’ to stem climate crisis https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/vast-majority-of-fossil-fuels-must-stay-in-ground-to-stem-climate-crisis/
In Norway many homes have heat pumps & are well insulated, in the UK most homes don't & aren't ( governments policies make a difference)
There must be more than 50% of houses in the county l live in, in the UK, that are poorly insulated buildings with friggin fire places or wood burners for heating (inadequate governance)
Generally, the fossil fuel industry needs to bury its idea's deep deep underground where they can't hurt anybody.
If we had governments that knew what they were doing & had the power, they'd set a future date by which time the fuel industries will be closed down (permanently)
That would motivate the type of transition needed to prevent a worsening #ClimateCrisis
Its amazing what society could do if decision makers were up against a dead line (prevent death line)
Always leaving a loophole for the business of the fuel industries. How, for example, are they going end the emissions of burning fuel in the myriad forms of combustion engined machines?
They can't even say what we must do, end the burning of fuels, because it's the fuel industries that are directing their policies.
@riodoro1 @blanketswithsmallpox @climate
They do fabricate a lot of BS to deflect the attention away from the problem. Burning fuel!
Reduction via energy efficiency & switching over to electricity, via wind, solar, water (wave, tidal, hydro) & thermal is right direction of travel. So yea, electric public transport, instead of private cars, generally does the same task, with far less resources (inc. power demands)
Yep, we must have energy to power the industrial complex. I mean, what would happen if we couldn't keep the lights on at at weapons factories? Or, heaven forbid, all those Christmas lights and masses of other non-essential products and services?
What will it take for people to take the effects of a degrading nature seriously? When there is another crazy war, it's all folk can think about.
It does make me question why so many "leaders" keep on making the same bad mistakes.
Small modular nuclear reactor?
Not in my back yard, thanks. Not that these industries tend to ask.
There are locations where, judging by the general populations ignorant attitudes, they don't have enough sense to give a shit about air quality or global warming.
However, in western "educated" society, those general attitudes have been formed due to corruption.
For example, where l live the general public are simply not exposed to the facts about air pollution & climate change. Many live in their own social bubbles & are exposed to industry propaganda
view more: next ›
scientist
joined 1 year ago
@Trollception @silence7
Exon Mobil's risk assessment. Go out of business ASAP!