Climate Change is not real!

[Deleted member 53669]

Taxing is reactive instead of proactive.

It's dumb. Especially for Europe.


America however...

Well we don't want to give the government more money because they will screw things up even worse like they always do.

Not without major legislative reforms first which will take decades. Without that we will just be dumping money into the trash.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Funny when you say that. Not that I want to tell you the government is awesome. But if the government can't fix it, who actually can?

Yeah. Not questioning that. But methodology is more than just a better thermometer. Several weather stations had to be moved because their surroundings changed too much, is all that accounted for?

I do not know. But If I had to make a guess they probably do? I am not a climate scientist. I can not tell you in detail how their climate models are made. But I don't believe no one in the scientific community ever asked the same questions you do particularly as the research has been going on for like 60 years or something. I would also assume those are not the only sources for measuring temperature. But like I said I am not so deep in the research and methodology behind it to know the definitive answer. But since we're not only talking about just one branch of science here it would pretty much mean that we have to doubt science and the scientific community as a whole and how they operated over the last 150 years.

What about those stations that were not moved and suddenly had many more streets around them? Or a dried out swamp close by? And those averages, how are they calculated? What is even the meaning of that? My point is that all these temperatures don't really say much. They are just sensationalism, not much of an actual indicator for climate change. Climate change is very likely real, and as I said before, cutting down on fossile fuel usage is always a good idea, but this sensationalism is doing nothing but prepping the populace for accepting all sorts of shit.

The heat waves we had recently are not just pure sensationalism though or the fact that we we're now spending billions in helping farmers to cope with the effects. Those are relatively new situations. And climate scientists did warn us from those effects. And again temperature is only one of many problems here that we're not addressing. You ask some valid questions but I have to say, I can not answer them all without looking in the details of the research and digging probably trough tons of scientific paper here. You studied physics at a university so you could always go and get them I guess you're more qualified than I am anyway.

But I do believe there is a lot of reason to be a bit concerned. Or at the very least ask your self where this will end in 10, 20 or 50 years. I am in my 30s after all. So it's not like I can say, well fuck it! I am 75! Who gives a shit? I won't lie. I am pretty egoistic when it comes to that so I do not have to consider if the planet will be inhospitable in 2100 and I also have no children. But if possible I not only want to have a decent live now but also in 40 years. And if that means I have to accept some changes now so I don't have to ask my self in 40 years from I can get clean food and water? Maybe we should do it. Maybe like how you consider not to snort cocain and alcohol out of a hookers belly every day to well prevent feeling like shit years later.

Currently planned or talked about fresh new taxes in Germany: additional tax on CO2 emission, increased VAT on meat, increased taxes on SUVs, extra tax on air travel... Did I forget anything? I'm sure there's more to come with the recession on its way. All the while we're still failing to meet our actual CO2 emission goals because we have to keep all the coal and gas plants running and ramping.
We need less fear, and more solutions. Actual solutions beyond just going into poverty, because we have those possibilities as well. But climate change is a political shitshow now.

We already have the technology ready. We just don't apply it. Many engineers and scientists working in the renewable sector have calculated and shown how it can be done. Germany could become in the energy sector carbon free within 5 years. Not all industries can be changed but we also don't have to and I am sur we can find solutions here there as well. I mean do we really need a new smart phone every 3 months an throwing tons of food away each year to be happy? I don't think so. But instead of moving forward we (Germany) have abolished about 80.000 jobs in the solar industry effectivelly destroying it to save 20.000 in the coal industry. And now we're having endless discussions about saving technologies like the combustion engine even though it's clear that this technology will become obsolete in a few years while battery production moved to asia.

If the carbon tax is a solution? I do not know. But what I do know however is that we have to give products an ecological price stamp. Meat, clothing, electronical devices, energy all the goods we manufacture and consume destroy parts of the environment. Some more some less. And if we do not make those that destroy the environment more expensive while supporting the ones that don't nothing will ever change. And I am saying this as someone who has almost no money, I am part of those 'poor' folks you're talking about right now. But systemic issues require systemic solutions. If we always neglect changes due to 'saving jobs in the coal industry' or because it will hit poor people we will not only damage the environment but also prevent future job opportunities and it will actually hit us poor people even more just at a later point. Germany was once leading in ecological solutions and environmental friendly technology. Now not anymore. I can not tell you what the right solution is to all questions and issues. But what I do know doing nothing at all is the wrong one. And right now we do almost nothing. But I am afraid there will be no perfect solution here.

We have waited so long with implementing solutions where we have done pretty much nothing for the last 30-40 years that I am afraid any change we apply now WILL be a painful one. No matter what we do. I like to compare it with diabetes. If you don't prevent it from happening despite the warnings all you can do once you have it is to change your habits and take your medications. Or you simply die.

At this point however I just think we will rather die. Humanity seems to be doomed. And I am not just talking about climate change. Forget climate change. It's just one of many issues. The far bigger problem is the loos of diversity on this planet and the pollution of the oceans, overfishing, mining, they also doubled the destruction of the rain forest this year. And we're right now doing even less here to tackle the issue than we do about climate change.


So yeah. We're basically fucked.

Everything you summed up did already occur in the past, due to natural phenomena. In the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, Britons grew their own wine grapes. Ocean acidification has occurred numerous times as a result of changes in the composition of Earth's atmosphere. And we all know the one where it goes that more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct.
Just saying.

What we experience now is also a natural phenomena if you consider that we're experiencing the 4th or 5th mass extinction event right now.

Doesn't change the fact that we're hums are (most likely) the cause for this event. But don't get me wrong Alec. I adopted more of your views over the years now.


So here as well. We are (most probably) fucked. Was a good time, I guess? ​

​

 

[gustarballs1983]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
This is somewhat interesting. Combined with a recent paper on the influence of the geomagnetic field on cloud formation (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8) it's quite fascinating. However, the Nature paper studies stuff over millenia and the geomagnetic field change is rather slow, so the effect is probably not that noticable (although I vaguely remember that the Earth's field is supposed to switch rather soon? But that would lead to increased cloud formation and lower temperatures, so the influence on global climate doesn't seem to be very large atm).
I'm not too deeply familiar with the actual current climate models, but I'd be surprised if they didn't include cloud coverage. Gonna read up on the models used in AR5. It does say this right at the start of the chapter on evaluating climate models:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
All in all quite interesting. The science is not quite fixed on this topic yet, although that does not mean that we shouldn't try and stop burning fossile fuels and general environmental damage. Even if the anthropogenic influence on the climate is low it is in our best interest to shift towards sustainable infrastructures wherever possible. We all want a cleaner, healthier Earth, no matter if CO2 emissions change the climate or not.

AFAIK how planet's magnetic field works related to temperature is that the more the field weakens the annual temperature amplitudes get higher (as in more cold in the winter and more hot in the summer) this is true especially for planets such as mars, it does not have a magnetic filed or it has a very weak one, and temperatures on the surface varay between 140 degrees centigrade during day and -80 degrees centigrade during night time.

I'm not sure on how it works exactly but it seemes to be the case for earth as well. Since the magnetic filed is getting weaker and weaker each passing year the annual and day to night temperature amplitudes should become bigger each passing year. I have no idea if the magnetic poles will ever switch or will the magnetic field simply die out on us. But certainly there is a connection between planet's magnetic field density and living conditions on the planet i.e. temperature extremums.

 

[Hassknecht]

Mars also has a very thin atmosphere, so its surface temperature is much more directly related to sun irradiance and doesn't have any greenhouse effect (despite being mostly made up of carbon dioxide, btw). Its atmosphere is thin because it has a weak magnetic field, though, as the solar wind "blows" the atmosphere away. Venus' magnetic field is also very low, and it's much closer to the sun, but its atmosphere is very thick and has a continuous cloud cover. The correlation and causation is a bit more complicated.
If I understood it correctly, with a weak magnetic field cosmic radiation penetrates deeper into the atmosphere and creates aerosol-like seeds for clouds by ionizing the air. A stronger cloud cover increases albedo and reduces solar irradiation, lowering temperatures.
Given the increased urbanization and usage/drying of wetlands, heat islands would form more readily. Lower albedo, higher heat retention, decreased water vapourisation.
@Crni Vuk
Yeah nah, the solar industry wasn't axed here, it just became not profitable anymore. As I said, solar cells are easy to produce, but require a lot of power, don't automate well, and are dirty in production. All of which are ideal for production in China, but not in Germany. I don't really see how we could go full renewable. Their power density is extremely low, and I apparently need to remind you again and again that every single kWh of renewables needs to be backed up by stable power plants or storage. And the technology for storage might be there, but not at this scale. Not economically feasible.
Here's the thing: Yes, the recent heat waves are sensationalism. Not because they are not real, but the cause for them is quite likely misreported. Heat waves and droughts are used to sell increased taxes on everything because it's an effect everybody notices or can be convinced to notice, and everyone is scared. War is peace, after all.
And hey, how fitting. Politicians talking about increased VAT on meat, and just now the IPCC released a report stating that agriculture releases like 23%-30% of CO2. Right on cue. In lesser news, Germany started to have a budget deficit again, and there's a recession on the horizon. But let's not focus on that, let's increase the taxes to save the world instead!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes. And now we get it all from China. Not profitable anymore ... alright. And the coal industry is? They receive billions in subsidies. Otherwise the industry would have been dead a long time ago. We could use the 46 billions that we throw each year in subsidies at coal, oil and gas and use it for renewables for example.

You do know that there was actually impossed a LIMIT on solar modules because it was becoming cheaper than coal. Solar technology was profitable. It was not axed due to economic reasons but because of lobbyism.

I don't really see how we could go full renewable. Their power density is extremely low, and I apparently need to remind you again and again that every single kWh of renewables needs to be backed up by stable power plants or storage. And the technology for storage might be there, but not at this scale.

Well Volker Quaschning says we can and he's one of the leading expert in the field :

Not economically feasible.

I mean this not to offend you when I say this right now. But this is the reason why we are fucked and why humanity will go down. If even someone like you who studied physics thinks in economic rather than scientific terms here, then there is really not much left that I or anyone else could say to change the situations. Neoliberalism and economic thinking have become so much a part of our every day lives that we simply can not imagine anymore a world or market that could work differently - and still provide us with a decent live. But I fear we will soon enough face a situation wehere "economics" will have to take a back seat to the effects of our current lifestyle, just like as if we would be in a war. Once the ecosystem collapsed on a global scale it is gone and it won't come back and we will live in different world from now. No economy on a dead planet so to speak - yes I know it's hyperbole but I say this to make a point. Once millions of climate refugees try to get into europe and basic resources like water and food will become scarce things will look very different from now and what ever if we still have jobs to buy our cars and who knows what else will be the least of our problems. But then it will be to late to make the necessary changes.

We have to get up and actually consider now what an ecological market economy would have to look like and how we can implement it in the next few years. Otherwise we will simply run always in to the same issues. And yes, this is possible. After WW2 we saw quite heavy changes in the way how Germany and Europe as a whole renewed their markets to be more social. And it worked for a long time. Now we simply come to a point where we have to change again. But I guess the preasure is simply not big enough.​

 

[Hassknecht]

When I say "not profitable", then I mean "not profitable HERE". Of course it's profitable in China, it's dirty work that is in high demand here, but we're too fancy to actually do it. We like to keep our surroundings and conscience clean, let the chinks ruin their environment for us. It's fucking hypocrisy that we blather on about "Energiewende" and shit when we do our very fucking best to not be able to actually do it because, you know, "not in my back yard".
Here's the thing: I think in scientific terms. I know how we can actually fucking fix all this shit, all the while, and you will not like this part, NOT actually going back to poverty. It's not fucking hard. But as I keep saying, our dear overlords are not interested in actually fixing things, they're interested in rationing and controlling as much as possible, and they get off on radical societal change and the dismantling of capitalism. That's what it's all about, not saving the environment. The environment is a means to an end.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Again, watch the video I posted. it IS profitable even HERE. There are countless of studies on the subject by now. And I see this argument not as a real point anyway since we can not always make every decision based on profitability if we're talking about the environment and protecting it. Everything we destroy here will be lost for ever. Neither Coal or Oil would be profitable either if it didn't receive billions in subsidies. Same as with many other industries which also receive subsidies. I do not understand why you oppose more renewable technologies with the argument that it's non-profitable (here!) even though we throw billions of euros at industries that not only cause a huge damage to the environment but come also with very severe health issues. We have to get rid of coal one way or another anyway not just because of the climate but also because of the increasing effects from coal dust and fine particles by burning fossil fuel.

Again why cling to an outdated technology that has FEWER jobs and not simply shift the subsidies to renewable energies?

NOT actually going back to poverty

Not throwing tons of food away each year and buying a smartphone every 3 months isn't poverty my friend. No one here is talking about moving back in to caves. But I am talking about consumerism. We had this discussions already.

But let us be hypothetical even if we would talk about our wealth here if this wealth is destroying our basis of existence than what the hell is it good for? Do you not want to have a decent live in 50 years as well or for your children?​

 

[TheGM]

I was promised that we're all gonna be frozen by 2008 by leading scientists when I was a kid and now we got this shit going on. anyhow...did crini just call Hassky a Climate Nazi?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I was also promised the world would end in 2012, and Y2K.

Too bad this time it's real.

 

[zegh8578]

999 = the end
42 = the answer to everything
= Apophis

COME TO US! COME TO US!!!

 

[Hassknecht]

So Saint Thunberg (PBUH) is on her way to the US, climate neutral on a sailboat.
But in true green PR show fashion it's actually a massive shitshow. It's a racing yacht, and usually they have tenders coming with them for safety and so on. That would ruin their optics, so instead they're having routine safety flights overhead. About a hundred. And a different team will sail the yacht back, flying to New York in the first place. So instead of two regular flights for Thunberg (PBUH) to and back they're having six+ flights and loads of safety flights and camera helicopters because of course there needs to be a big media brawl about the whole thing.
Glorious.
Also, no comments about the weather in August? It's not even half the temperatures of just a few weeks ago. Surely this also proves climate change in some way*.



*Just to be clear: Climate change is real. Local weather just isn't an indication for it. And to say it again, because apparently this is necessary: Climate change is real. Local weather just isn't an indication for it. One hot summer month doesn't say much. Also, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL. No denial here, Crni. It is real. I do not doubt it. I just doubt that a few hot days in July are reasons for panic.

 

[zegh8578]

My personal eyeroll with the climate-girl is that she´s just another little distraction. She has her speech, where she expresses hope that one day politicians will understand, and then those politicians applaud "yes, little girl, maybe some day we will LOL has the arctic corridor opened fully for sino-atlantic trade yet LOL"

If we keep up the illusion that politicians are merely one empassioned speech away from "getting it" we will never be able to do anything about anything, because they DO get it, and pretending they don´t is the best smoke-screen ever.

"Hmmm, how about you explain it even better, a few years down the line, with an even charminger little kid?"

 

[Deleted member 53669]

The rich are awaiting to deploy the next level experimental attack hounds on your ass and your personal freak out is what they are counting on.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So Saint Thunberg (PBUH) is on her way to the US, climate neutral on a sailboat.

To be fair she does receive quite a lot of unreasonable hate though and I always wonder, how miserable must someone be to attack an autistic girl hoping that she ends up dying on sea due to some accident.

What ever if what she does is now ridiculous or not but the luxury we have is, we can simply ignore it. And that's what I do not understand with the criticism sometimes or what some call criticism. You want to eat meat all day fly 4 times a year and cruising around in your SUV? Go and do it. Live your live. But why complaining about people that want to change something when (almost) everyone knows that we HAVE to change something if we want to avoid issues in the future? If there is a 'climate hysteria' as some call it then there sure is also the opposite of it.

 

[Hassknecht]

It's the hypocrisy and open shittiness of the whole situation. Thunberg was blatantly cast by the media to be THE figurehead of some artificial youth movement, and now they're throwing her into crappy PR stunts that are just soooo fake. That's not Thunberg's fault, I'm sure she's genuine, but she's being used. I don't hate her, not at all, I hate what the media made of her.
And people like you gobble it all up. And now you're all softened up that you'll accept every ban and restriction as for a good cause, no matter how much sense it makes.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's the hypocrisy and open shittiness of the whole situation. Thunberg was blatantly cast by the media to be THE figurehead of some artificial youth movement, and now they're throwing her into crappy PR stunts that are just soooo fake. That's not Thunberg's fault, I'm sure she's genuine, but she's being used. I don't hate her, not at all, I hate what the media made of her.

Some sources for that would be nice.



I also didn't say that you hate her. I was talking about unreasonable hate that she's receiving like people wishing her to die in some accident.

I hope we can agree that that's simply shit.

And people like you gobble it all up. And now you're all softened up that you'll accept every ban and restriction as for a good cause, no matter how much sense it makes.

This is the thing. You acknowledge the fact that we have to make a transition but you're not willing to make the necessary change. And that is sadly the reality with most people out there. Hence why humanity is fucked. As I said.

Hassknecht : Man, I am not feeling so well. I better go to the doctor!
Doctor : You're overweight and you have to do more exercises and change your diet and if you don't do it you will get diabetes eventually.
Hassknecht : I know that I am too fat! But I am not here to ask for your advice just give me some medications!
10 years later
Hassknecht after two heart failures and losing his leg due to diabetus : Damnit!

There are things we have to change what ever if we like it or not.

Besides I think it makes plenty sense to bann SUVs in cities, getting rid of coal as fast as possible and preserving the environment in a fashion where we're not loosing 70% of the insects. Not every law makes sense granted but it's awfully obvious that we have to make some very serious changes due to the fact that we have done jack shit for the last 30 years. So yeah I could totally see one day - if people actually get behind it - that we will bann single use plastic and maybe even cars and who knows what else. Not because we want it but because we have to. Because there will be so much microplastic in our food, ground, hell even the air that we have no other choice. Just as how we got rid of Asbestos and DDT at some point.

 

[zegh8578]

What can Hass or you or me do though? Recycle everything? Recycle even more? Stop visiting distant relatives? Bicycle instead, to distant relatives, I live in Norway, they live in Spain, I´m not gonna bicycle to Spain.
Should we... eh... bring our own bag to the store, to avoid plastic? If I do that, you AND Hass, how much does that help?

Ban SUVs you say, fine - I´ll do my best, but so far I´m not good at getting anything banned I´m afraid :I

So, I´m guessing the primary answer here is: Vote

But... for who? The Greens? What are their platforms concerning society as a whole? And how in every damn hell are we supposed to make green parties the primary powers of *every country on earth*?

You´re right Crni. We ARE fucked. I can´t unfuck us, you can´t, and Hass can´t.
Once more I must sound like some emo cosmo poet but - humans were never predestined to anything, least of all succeed in creating a good world for all. We´re organisms, and organisms spread and consume. I bet Hass goes "mrrrgh!" every now and then, when he sees some news report featuring gushing factory chimneys, and I don´t know how much louder or empassioned he´s gonna have to "mrrrgh!"-it before it changes the world.
Believe me - I "mrrrgh!" a LOT! A LOT! I love nature, I love animals, I can hardly go a day without despairing about the state of the world, but... you know... what... I allready bicycle, man... :I I ride the bus :I I even bring a bag TO the store, like a homo :I

 

[Crni Vuk]

I can tell you what we have to do not what we could do. Apparently we can do only very little it seems as someone from somewhere will always come up with a reason why it's not possible to give up on SUVs, coal, factory farming, domestic flights, cruises and overproduction. (Almost) Everyone acknowledges that we have to get rid of those things one way or another but no one's willing to make the change. And thus we are constantly trapped in a loop of we have to change but it's to difficult cuz jobs, economy, bla bla bla. We have been for the last 50 years in this discussion where the argument always was, wait a few years and science/engineers will come up with better solutions that are better for the environment so we don't have to change our lifestyle! Well turns out this point where we HAVE(!) to change or deal with the consequences is almost here now the so called point of no return. But how long are we supposed to wait with changes? Another 50 years before we reach the successful decarbonisation of our economies?

But things will change one way or another. The question is only how severe the change will be in the end. If the global agriculture collapses for example and even in central Europe droughts and famines are becoming more common we will not have this conversation anymore like what we can do but a conversation about that we haven't done enough.​

What can Hass or you or me do though? Recycle everything? Recycle even more? Stop visiting distant relatives? Bicycle instead, to distant relatives, I live in Norway, they live in Spain, I´m not gonna bicycle to Spain.
Should we... eh... bring our own bag to the store, to avoid plastic? If I do that, you AND Hass, how much does that help?

Ban SUVs you say, fine - I´ll do my best, but so far I´m not good at getting anything banned I´m afraid :I

So, I´m guessing the primary answer here is: Vote

But... for who? The Greens? What are their platforms concerning society as a whole? And how in every damn hell are we supposed to make green parties the primary powers of *every country on earth*?

You´re right Crni. We ARE fucked. I can´t unfuck us, you can´t, and Hass can´t.
Once more I must sound like some emo cosmo poet but - humans were never predestined to anything, least of all succeed in creating a good world for all. We´re organisms, and organisms spread and consume. I bet Hass goes "mrrrgh!" every now and then, when he sees some news report featuring gushing factory chimneys, and I don´t know how much louder or empassioned he´s gonna have to "mrrrgh!"-it before it changes the world.
Believe me - I "mrrrgh!" a LOT! A LOT! I love nature, I love animals, I can hardly go a day without despairing about the state of the world, but... you know... what... I allready bicycle, man... :I I ride the bus :I I even bring a bag TO the store, like a homo :I

This isn't about what we as individual can do but what kind of political decisions we as society agree on.

I think we have to separate two positions here. One is the individual and his responsibility and the other is the society we as a whole so to speak. If we talk about systemic issues we will achieve only very little with personal responsibility. Crime doesn't stop because you ask criminals to listen to their conscience and personal responsibility. You need laws. And neither are companies stopping to pollute the environment due to self-commitment. You have to make it more expensive to pollute/destroy the environment so that it's less profitable than conserving it. We have a lot of laws and regulations in places due to experience not because we love dictatorships. I can not tell you what party you should vote because at the end of the day this is a bipartisan issue. Actually every political party from conservatives, to greens and social democrats should understand what the BARE MINIMUM is that should be done and this minimum regarding the climate and pollution should be based solely on science. It's like a discussion why rape should be outlawed and someone would ask, which party should I vote for! The greens? The left? But that's not the point. Because this shouldn't be a political discussion in the first place since every party should agree that rape is wrong so it shouldn't matter which party you vote here.

So if we really want to make some changes here we have to start to make laws and regulations with the aim to do so. Like banning cars from cities for example. And yes that is possible. No one says it's easy or that it's not very disruptive. Particularly as we're running out of time here. But we have to remember cities have been here long before cars they at some point became a part of it and we're not born with cars nor is it impossible to live without cars. As long as you have alternatives. The cities today look different compared to what it was 50 or 100 years ago and they will change again. A few cities are on their way to such a transition in becoming completely free of cars. Like Amsterdam and at least one European City has now implemented free public transport. In Germany our government is spending billions in supporting cars and the car industry right now we could start for example by taking those subsidies and financing alternatives to cars like public transportation and better infrastructure for bicycles.

The important point here though is the will the willingness to change and I am honest here I do not see this right now. So yeah. Like I said. We are fucked.

 

[TorontoReign]

Yeah nah, the solar industry wasn't axed here, it just became not profitable anymore!

Yep. Crni, you do understand the reason people have not switched totally is because there is no money in it - right? Paying 80 + thousand people when you are not making money is hard.

Until poor people in Oklahoma have solar power and nothing else, this is not going to be a "thing" really. You will still have crackhead handymen doing your electric for a couple hits of meth.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Not profitable anymore my ass. I guess that's why more than 30% of the energy in Germany is coming from renewables. And is expected to be growing even more. Cuz it's not profitable.

Yep. Crni, you do understand the reason people have not switched totally is because there is no money in it - right? Paying 80 + thousand people when you are not making money is hard.

Until poor people in Oklahoma have solar power and nothing else, this is not going to be a "thing" really. You will still have crackhead handymen doing your electric for a couple hits of meth.

I don't need to understand anymore.

As I said countless times. Nature does not give a fuck what we do or don't do what we can or can't do if there are poor or rich or what ever. It doesn't matter. We wouldn't be the first civilisation which disappeared due to their actions, cutting down all the forests and depleting every natural resource. Civilisations have collapsed in the past due to their own actions. We simply observe this right now on a global level. We have literally a front seat right now.

And I find it irritating that (almost) no one here is actually reading what I write anymore and just arguing out of their asses. I linked to professionals, experts, scientists that say it's possible and I find it funny to say it's not viable when when we look at Germany for examle where 80.000 jobs in the solar industry have been axed to save 20.000 in the coal industry which is receiving more than 40 billion(!) in subsidies despite the fact that more and more people are loosing their jobs here. It's a dying technology. Plane and simple. Why not shift those subsidies to renewable energies and use the money to support the poor people you're talking about? We will have to do this one way or another anyway as coal deposits won't be here for ever. So why not build the infrastructure for the change as long as we actually can and have the resources for it? Is that such an impossible feat to achieve. That's how the fossil fuel industry started 100 years ago as well before it became a viable technology. Trough subsidies. Which they often still receive. And to think humanity managed to get to the moon once. in the 60s no less. And here 60 years later we debate what ever if it's possible to decarbonise our industry. What a joke.

This is not a technological problem it is one of idelogy, politics and lobbysm. The fossil fuel industry one with a history of more than 100 years has simply the better conection into politics and the necessary infrastructure to protect their interests. The same people that now talk about jobs will be the first one to cry for huge government support in the following decades when they realize shit hits the fan. Mark my words. This can not go on for ever. And you know who won't be around anymore to help those poor people? The fossil fuel industry.