You must log in or # to comment.
Maybe so. But we have to think about the shareholders before we do anything.
I work hard for their fifth house so they don’t have to
And this benefits the rich how? Capitalism only cares about line-go-up.
Maybe it’s time they are reminded of reality
what if instead we invented a fascist mode of production and replaced news with off track betting parlors? would that work instead?
The problem with MBAs is that you can never tell if they’re intentionally ignorant and lying to you or if they’re just that stupid.
Both lol. MBA is basically a negative education 😆
MBAs are just degrees in slaver bullshit. once you have one you’re not human anymore.
People act like the problems facing humanity require complex difficult solutions but that’s not true at all. Solving our problems is easy, solving our problems without inconveniencing some rich asshole is hard. Solving our problems while making the already wealthy even richer is the standard we are being held to which is essentially imposible.
There is a lot of geopolitics to unpack here and I guess the study assumes an “and every gets along forever” approach until we reach 100%. Heads up: I am absolutely for 100% renewables, expecting us to land at about 95% in 15-20 years.
China is so far ahead in integrated manufacturing and technology on solar and batteries (wind I would argue that international competitions might be further ahead), that it would basically mean handing a bucket load of cash to them for the US to land on 100%. This is probably the crux of why the US will not go for renewables in the short term. Old butthole in the president’s chair is just doing the bidding of US a) military advisors and b) oil companies. Russia is similar.
Also, the availability of cheap gas in the US means that even aiming for 50% renewables creates a big short term economic question mark. Is this a pathetic argument, of course! Is this also the downside to democracy and election cycles? Probably!
Europe however has 3 choices: 1) get into bed with China and hope to hell it doesn’t turn on them, 2) wait for the Ukraine war to end in as favourable position for Ukraine as possible, before getting back to buying Russian gas, or 3) go back to burning dirty coal. Restarting European solar manufacturing isn’t going to happen. Hydro is already probably close to max build out and will only get more unreliable and nuclear is basically #2 with less pipeline gas.
Poke all the holes you want, I am not an expert in this, only keenly interested.
you’re describing tyranny that is against what people want and calling it democracy.
I mean, sure! But if you can effectively control the media to make the people want to shoot themselves in the foot, what’s that called?
its probably on purpose we don’t have a word for that, but you’re dodging the point: choosing your tyrant is not democracy, so people are infantilized and alienated from the consequences of their decisions.
I’d be interested to see how you arrive at 95% renewables in 15-20 years. I know progress is happening, but the cynic in me doesn’t see how that happens.
nuclear is basically #2 with less pipeline gas.
Also has the same unreliability problems as hydro, as we’ve seen in France recently.
Would love to see more solar manufacturing in Europe. I’m living in Germany at the moment and there are plenty of solar farms around, would be great if they were produced locally (no idea if any of them are).
I think the climate tipping point being undeniable will kill the last of the climate change denial politics. IMO they’re a dying breed as it is. Maybe even this coming El-Niño will unfortunately be the kick a few need.
Once the long term economics make it clear that there is no other way to go except renewables, not many will stand in the way. On the plus side, once the money starts pouring in, change and adoption could absolutely be quicker than 15-20 years too.
Source:
but the expense will pay for itself in under seven years, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford University.
Such an initiative would create 3.1 million more jobs than if the U.S. stayed on a business-as-usual trajectory, and would save 63,000 lives from air pollution every year, the report said
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-73-trillion
Interestingly from 7 years ago so we could already have paid it off?
OK, but how much of the money spent will go to oil billionaires?
I mean, I also can pull numbers out of my ass
