Arguments
One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement
Posted on 19 December 2017 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from UN Climate Change News
UN Climate Change News, Paris, Dec 12 – Today at the One Planet Summit, on the 2nd anniversary of the Paris Agreement, world leaders gathered once again in the French capital to underscore how financial flows are shifting billions and trillions towards a low-carbon future that will benefit peoples and livelihoods.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary UN Climate Change, said: “Today has marked another extraordinary moment in the world-wide efforts to turn the promise of the Paris Agreement into a global reality—in other words delivering a climate secure future to all corners of the Earth and contributing to the sustainable future of every man, woman and child”.
“From the United Nations system to governments and investors, billions of dollars have today been mobilized and trillions more pointed towards a transformation of the world’s energy to agricultural sectors, adding to the finance that has already been flowing before, during and since Paris 2015”.
“We know this is going to be a long journey and there will be bumps along the way. But the alignment of so many areas of the global economy, the process to reset the financial system and the support for developing countries’ national climate action plans or NDCs announced today, should give everyone a sense that the urgency needed and the scale required is being forged”.
“We look forward from the UN Climate Conference 2017 in Bonn and the One Planet Summit in Paris, to California, COP24 in Poland in 2018 and the UN Secretary-General’s Summit in 2019 as the world moves to raise ambition further before 2020 under the UN climate change process.”
The conveners of the Summit – French President Emmanuel Macron, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and UN Secretary-General António Guterres – signed a Declaration to welcome the outcomes of the event, which launched an array of landmark commitments.
These are helping to demonstrate that public and private finance is rapidly being deployed in both developed and developing countries to strengthen sustainable development and assist nations towards achieving their national climate action plans, known as NDCs.
This momentum also represents a broader reshaping of the world’s financial architecture, which will be fundamental to creating the conditions for a successful Talanoa Dialogue next year and the urgency of countries to raise ambition further and faster.
The French government has identified 12 #OnePlanet commitments.
The following list includes most of these and other key announcements made during the One Planet Summit that will help to keep global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees and, in turn, safeguard the meeting of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals:
EU External Investment Plan: climate-smart investments worth EUR €9 billion unveiled at 'One Planet Summit':
- As part of the EU External Investment Plan (EIP), which is set to mobilise at least €44 billion of sustainable investment for Africa and the EU Neighbourhood countries by 2020.
- Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete announced climate-relevant investments in three targeted areas – sustainable cities, sustainable energy and connectivity and sustainable agriculture, rural entrepreneurs and agribusiness. These targeted areas are expected to generate up to EUR €9 billion investments by 2020.
Sustainable Finance Facilities: UN Environment and BNP Paribas sign a milestone agreement to establish collaborative partnerships with a target of capital funding amounting to USD 10 billion by 2025 in developing countries:
- UN Environment and BNP Paribas will collaborate to identify suitable commercial projects with measurable environmental and social impact. The aim is to support smallholder projects related to renewable energy access, agroforestry, water access and responsible agriculture, among other sustainable activities.
- The Sustainable Finance Facilities programme is the first of its kind in terms of collaboration between companies, investors, development sector partners, and civil society organisations, with the support of national governments.
- This agreement builds on the Tropical Landscapes Financing Facility, a partnership between UN Environment, BNP Paribas, World Agroforestry Centre and ADM Capital in Indonesia.
Climate Action 100+: 225 investors with more than USD 26.3 trillion assets under management to engage with 100+ companies to accelerate climate action:
- Global investors launched a new initiative to drive action on climate change from the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters by ensuring they act swiftly to improve governance on climate change, curb emissions, and strengthen climate-related financial disclosures.
- Specifically, as part of their collaborative engagement, investors from around the world will ask companies to: Implement a strong governance framework which clearly articulates the board’s accountability and oversight of climate change risk; take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across their value chain; provide enhanced corporate disclosure in line with the final recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The Caribbean Climate Smart Coalition: Caribbean leaders launch ambitious plan to create the world’s first “climate smart zone”, seeking rapid implementation of USD 8 billion climate investment plan:
- Alongside the ongoing emergency response, Caribbean leaders announced the launch of a new public-private coalition to create the world's first "climate-smart zone" that will transform the regional energy system, build resiliency, drive economic growth and set a global example.
- The Caribbean Climate-Smart Coalition will support and help catalyse an ambitious USD 8 billion investment plan to bring greater energy and infrastructure resilience to 3.2 million Caribbean households. It will help Caribbean islands to eliminate their costly dependency on fossil fuels so that they can meet close to 100% percent of their energy needs from clean or renewable sources, and to embed resilience into communities and livelihoods to realise the bold ambitions of all Caribbean people.
UN Women: Initiative to boost resilience of women and youth in the Sahel through climate-smart agriculture will transform livelihoods of a million people by doubling their income in three years:
- The climate smart agriculture programme will leverage information and communication technologies (ICTs) to provide access to agriculture assets. Using a digital platform, known as ‘Buy-From-Farmers’ or AgriFed, small-scale women and youth farmers will be connected to customers, suppliers, information, markets and finance to help build their economic identity and make them valued entrepreneurs, able to end food insecurity in the Sahel.
- UN Women presented the programme, which is among some 12 initiatives showcased at today’s Summit, on behalf of the UN system.
UNITLIFE: Initiative to galvanize new global, regional and national level public-private partnerships for generating more innovative financing for 2030 Sustainable Development Goals:
- UNITLIFE will use digital innovation to collect voluntary micro-donations from consumers at the time of a purchase. During the initiative’s implementation phase, the micro-donations will go into a central fund, hosted by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).
- The funds will then be disbursed to support a set of important and complementary measures, currently overlooked and underfunded, in order to address both climate change and malnutrition (affecting approximately one in five children worldwide and constituting a major hindrance for the development of the poorest countries).
- An early program, supported by UN Women, will encourage training for women on climate-resilient agriculture in the Sahel region.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): Two hundred thirty-seven companies with a combined market capitalization of over $6.3 trillion have publicly committed to support the TCFD:
- Mike Bloomberg and FSB Chair Mark Carney announced growing support for the TCFD on the two-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, including over 150 financial firms, responsible for assets of over USD 81.7 trillion.
- The companies and organizations supporting the TCFD, which have more than doubled in number in the five months since the recommendations were published in June 2017, span the entire capital and investment chain—from companies that issue equity and debt to the largest credit rating agencies to stock exchanges and ultimately to investors that buy the equities and debt.
- 14 companies are now committed to implement the recommendations in the next 3 years, and the TCFD will launch a new platform to monitor the implementation of the recommendations, called TCFD Knowledge.
EBRD and global cities group scale up green urban financing:
- Under the new partnership, the EBRD and the GCoM are seeking to drive climate action in up to 60 cities, including many that have not been a focus for climate support so far.
- The EBRD will provide over US$ 500 million in “first mover” financing aimed at leveraging additional third party contributions for the development and implementation of city action plans and projects worth a total of US$ 1.5 billion.
Leaders of countries and regions across the Americas vow to put a price on greenhouse gases as a key instrument in the fight against climate change:
- Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile and Mexico pledged to apply the cost of carbon dioxide discharges to guide public investment decisions and to encourage private companies to follow suit through internal pricing systems.
- The governors of California and Washington, as well as the premiers of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, also joined the declaration signed at the One Planet Summit.
- The initiative was endorsed by the International Emissions Trading Association, whose members comprise leading energy companies, consulting firms and brokers.
Canada and World Bank Partnership to support effective climate action in developing countries in support of the Paris Agreement:
- Canada and the World Bank Group will support the acceleration of developing countries’ transition away from traditional coal-fired electricity toward clean energy to power their fast-growing economies.
- They will also support small island developing states in expanding their renewable energy infrastructure, helping to put them on a more sustainable pathway that is less polluting and ensures greater energy access. This work also includes sharing best practices on how to ensure a just transition for displaced workers and their communities to minimize hardships and help workers and communities benefit from new clean growth opportunities.
AXA accelerates its commitment to fight climate change: multiplying green investments fourfold to Euro 12 billion by 2020; and committing to over Euro 3 billion of additional divestments from carbon-intensive energy producers:
- In 2015, AXA committed to reach Euro 3 billion in green investments by 2020. Given that this target has already been reached, the Group has decided to quadruple its original target and reach Euro 12 billion by 2020.
- AXA decided two years ago to divest Euro 500 million from the coal industry by targeting companies which derive over 50% of their revenues from coal. Today, the group decided to increase its divestment fivefold to reach Euro 2.4 billion, by divesting from companies which derive more than 30% of their revenues from coal, have a coal-based energy mix that exceeds 30%, actively build new coal plants, or produce more than 20 million tonnes of coal per year.
Storebrand, Norway’s biggest private pension fund, launched a USD 1.3 billion fossil-fuel-free bond programme and urged investors to do more to curb climate change:
- The bond fund adds to USD 2.1 billion equity funds run by Storebrand which also have no investments in fossil fuels. In total, Storebrand has a total USD 80 billion worth of assets under management.
- The new fund, Storebrand Global Kreditt IG, will be invested mainly in corporate bonds issued by financial institutions and industrial companies in developed nations.
The World Bank to no longer finance upstream oil and gas projects after 2019:
- World Bank says it will cease financing upstream oil and gas after 2019, apart from certain gas projects in the poorest countries in exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear benefit in terms of energy access for the poor and the project fits within the countries’ Paris Climate Change Agreement commitments).
- The bank also announced it was "on track to meet its target of 28 percent of its lending going to climate action by 2020."
Green Bonds Pledge: Industrial issuers of €26 billion in Green bonds pledge to double down on green financing:
- Nine of Europe’s largest industrial emitters of green bonds (EDF, Enel, ENGIE, Iberdrola, Icade, Paprec, SNCF Réseau, SSE and TenneT) publicly announced their pledge to further develop one of the most dynamic segments of sustainable finance today, the green bond market.
- These companies have joined forces to voice their commitment to the green bond market as part of their strategy, financing policy and their active engagement in the reporting debate and dialogue with investors. The pledge also calls upon other industrial corporates to consider issuing green bonds.
Financial Disclosure in China: “By 2020 every listed company in China must disclose information on environmental impacts”:
- Top green finance official Ma Jun told Climate Finance Day attendees that China wants international support to clean up its investments abroad. Ma Jun explained that without this information, the market cannot determine who is green – or not.
- China is also encouraging green investment at home. These range from cheap money for banks that invest in green projects to requiring certain industries to take out pollution liability insurance.
- He said that 2020, all companies would be required to disclose information on their environmental impact: “The basic logic is: we need a lot of money for green investments”.
Shareholders Resolutions: Exxon has bowed to shareholders’ demands to provide details on climate-change impact to its business:
- ExxonMobil says it will publish new details about how climate change could affect its business, in a move aimed at appeasing critics and forestalling another proxy fight next year.
- The largest U.S. oil and gas producer said in a filing to U.S. securities regulators that its board agreed to provide shareholders with information on “energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future.”
89 French companies, representing an overall turnover of 1,5 billion Euros and 6 million jobs worldwide, committed to invest massively in low-carbon solutions as part of the French Business Climate Pledge:
- 60 companies made commitments to reduce their emissions, 27 have an internal price on carbon, and 42 are engaged in the Science-Based Targets initiative or are considering joining it.
- 34 of the companies have decided or intend to implement the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
One Planet Charter: ICLEI, Global Covenant of Mayors, and C40 announce to charter to accelerate Local Implementation of the Paris Agreement:
- Through the One Planet Charter, cities will commit to specific climate action that drives investments, sustainable public procurement, and policy decisions in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric vehicles, and efforts for zero emission buildings and zero waste.
- The Charter highlights cities’ commitment to increase demand for sustainable and resilient infrastructure, products and services, while also recognizing the importance of working closely with national governments and business sectors to mobilise global climate action.
- Cities will bring detailed commitments to the 2018 Global Action Summit in California.
Urban 20 (U20): C40 Cities launch U20 initiative to raise the profile of urban issues and enhance the role of cities in the G20 agenda:
- Urban 20 (U20) is a new diplomatic initiative, facilitated by C40 Cities, to help cities develop collective messages and inclusive solutions for global issues such as climate action, the future of work and social integration.
- The initiative will bring together 30 major cities located in G20 countries, and many other global cities, to raise the profile of urban issues in the G20 agenda and enhance the role of cities in the G20 process.
- The inaugural U20 Mayors Summit will meet in Buenos Aires in October 2018, ahead of the G20 Heads of State Summit hosted by Argentina.
Research on health benefits of climate action in Paris holds lessons for cities worldwide: such action adds 3 weeks to average life expectancy for every citizen of Paris and could prevent 45,000 premature deaths globally each year:
- New research by C40 Cities and announced by Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo & Former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger revealed the scale of the potential health benefits that could be achieved by cities and regions implementing climate action and policies to clean the air that citizens breathe.
- Walking or cycling to work, on green & healthy streets, can cut your risk of heart disease by almost one quarter and type 2 diabetes by 15%, and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
The BNP Paribas Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, under the patronage of the President of France, launch One Planet Fellowship:
- The One Planet Fellowship is a USD 15 million 5-year programme designed to support 600 African and European researchers working to help Africa adapt to climate change. It also aims to bolster the African and European scientific community working in this field.
- One Planet Fellows will collaborate in research and higher education projects that aim to advance agriculture and climate change issues, funded by the Agropolis Foundation over a five-year period with a budget of USD 5 million.
UNIDO has mobilized US$849m to protect the ozone layer and reduce global warming:
- Since becoming an implementing agency of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1992, UNIDO has completed around 1,400 projects to phase-out ozone-depleting substances in developing countries and economies in transition.
- As a recipient of 20% of the budget of the Multilateral Fund, UNIDO has received USD $849 million to prepare and appraise investment project proposals and implement phase-out schedules at plant level.
Thankyou for some positive news that may encourage others to follow suit.
We must face the obvious problem: We are polluting the planet, and using resources frighteningly fast, due to a combination of fossil fuel use, high population growth and high gdp growth.
The solution has to be a combination of renewable energy, better controls on polluting activities, aim to slowly achieve smaller global population, and phase down to steady state economy with zero gdp growth.There is no alternative.Even recycling while useful, comes up against limits eventually.
The UN sustainable development goals make perfect sense.
We can help vulnerable people adjust, and ensure assistance is targeted at programmes that really work and that spend money wisely. We must not let powerful people with vested interests and mean spirited ideologues stand in the way of all these various things.
All these solutions have a huge range of hidden benefits to our lifestyles,and security, and will make long term sustainablity possible.
Perhaps someone can explain what actually happened at the One Planet Summit.
I just went through all of this whole post entitled "Finance Commitments Fire Up Higher Momentum" and I do not see very much other than fanfare or repetition of promises made in the past.
As part of the fanfare, Patricia Espinosa is quoted as follows:
“From the United Nations system to governments and investors, billions of dollars have today been mobilized and trillions more pointed towards a transformation of the world’s energy to agricultural sectors, adding to the finance that has already been flowing before, during and since Paris 2015”.
But in reading through this post, I am at a loss to understand what billions of dollars have been announced today. I see Bill Gates promising $15MM over five years but that works out to $3mm per year. That is "chump change" to Bill Gates probably representing about a half of one day's interest return on his net worth.
Perhaps someone can elucidate. What concerns me is that countries are great at making big announcements but not so great at cutting the cheques.
What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change. Unless I am missing something, the last time we saw this was the Marshall Plan. That is a long time ago and was a very bold move by Truman to counter communism.
Please note that I am not referencing specific actions on climate change taken within a specific country.
Norris M @2
"I do not see very much other than fanfare or repetition of promises made in the past."
Talk is cheap. You provide no proof (with internet links) that these announcements are merely repetition. It seems unlikely to me they would just repeat exact past dollar commitments.
"But in reading through this post, I am at a loss to understand what billions of dollars have been announced today. "
The article is a summary. Why not read the links and original reports etc.
"I see Bill Gates promising $15MM over five years but that works out to $3mm per year. That is "chump change" to Bill Gates"
He gives billions to other causes. Now you have finished rubbishing Gates, how much do you contribute, - as a well paid lawyer?
"What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change."
What you are doing is spreading cynical negativity and doubt.
NorrisM,
I completely agree with your identification of the problem: "People able to get away with pursuits of Private Interests that are impediments to the pursuit of the Global Public Interest of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals."
What do you propose should be done to/about those trouble-makers?
nigelj
If there had been major commitments I would have expected this author to detail them. The onus is on the person writing the article to provide evidence for broad statements.
OPOF @ 4
My criticism is of politicians who are good at making announcements but not so good at following through. If those are the troublemakers, I am not sure what you do with them other than vote them out. I think we are past the point in our political development when they get marched up to the guillotine.
NorrisM @5, I'm not going to waste much time on this.The very first link in the article above namely "One Planet Summit" contains a page titled look at projects with 25 videos of different projects, plus a written summary of each. But apparently that is to hard for you to find, and not sufficient information?
Nigelj@6, what I see in that list of 25 descriptions of projects are 25 different views on projects formely known as Official Development Assistance projects. Funded by budget allocation guarantees, fully paid for by the recipients over a 20,30,40 years.
The equity of such projects is mainy paid for in kind (equipment like trains, busses, generator sets and 'Technical Assistance' in the form of consultancy on design and organisation executed/paid for from the same equity budget) often not reaching 10% of the total budget.
All costs are retrieved from local and service (maintenance, adaption, managment fees) activities which guarantees the salaries and part prices of the foreign assistance.
None of the projects specify a particular climate goal those one to reach. Sure lines have been added to show a lower CO2 eq emissions as before the project.
https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-finance-ahead-of-the-one-planet-summit/ mentions that a 6.3 trillion is needed, yearly till 2030. Committed is 100 billion from 2020 onwards( not yet there): 15% and not sure it is there. The list of finance mentioned a lot of asset value of several companies but those do not even add up to the required 100 billion. Let alone that bonds on those assets do reach 10 billion. Divesting in oil & gas & coal is not 'new' money ready for investment.
So I agree that One Planet Summit is not more than window dressing, Business As Usual in a new coat. So much more could be done.
Ger, Norris asked for a list of projects and some idea of funding. The link I pointed to does just this. Maybe its not perfect in the exact format that would keep Norris happy, well he is an intelligent guy and can use google to track things down.
He is also a lawyer, and I'm used to reading many documents by many lawyers, and they are mostly incomprehensible and often don't answer my questions, and are never in a form that suits me, or any normal human being, and lawyers charge a fortune. So I have no symapthy if Norris has trouble with the above article!
You also make many claims of fact about those projects that are not immediately apparent to me in the summaries.
But thank's for the link to the OECD study. I agree totally the funds allocated are well below what is required. Window dressing is too harsh, but yes so much more could be done, and has to be done. Most of the latest research evidence reported on websites like this shows an ever growing problem with the climate. But what is needed is some ideas on how to do more, not complaining.
nigel @8
Nigel, this reminds me of a quote from Mao Tse Sung (sp) when he was developing his nuclear capabilities and other nations were trying to discourage him in various ways but could not agree on how to do so. Mao's quote was: "Talk, talk, talk, spin, spin, spin!"
I am sure this quote could be adapted to nations coming together to actually commit funds to other countries regarding assisting them to advance climate change agendas.
NorrisM,
The global collective action against other 'trouble-makers is targetted financial penalty and International Criminal Court.
If the Trouble-makers regarding climate change do not change their ways it is ikely that the International community of responsible leaders will have 'no choice' but to implement targetted financial sanctions on the Trouble-makers and step things up to trying the worst offenders for Cries against the future of humanity.
It would be great if everyone could be expected to responsibly and considerately limit/control teir behaviour and help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. And that requirement should be increased for the wealthier or more influential people.
But realistically there will always be some who deliberately try to benefit from behaving in understandably unaccepable ways. So the financial sanctons and criminal proceedings against the worst climate change offenders (irresponsible wealthy ones and elected representatives) will likely occur in the future. And the basis for doing that is well established, and being improved/strengthened with each new international meeting regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (not just climate change).
NorrisM,
Another way of expressing the point:
Any nation that fails to have responsible leaders (in business or politics) loses the priviledge of sovereignty. So it is up to the population of a nation/region to ensure that all of its Winners/Leaders are responsible considerate pursuers of the corrections and types of new things that are consistent with and supportive of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
Any region or nation that fails to keep damaging Private Interests from Winning will require external guidance/correction. And that external action will be diplomatic to the extent that is practical. with targetted financial penalties and International Criminal Procedings as required to achieve what the future of humanity requires to be achieved.
How the USA system processes the " vs. " case will be an indication of how deserving the USA system is of sovereignty. Developing a sustainable better future for all of humanity is quickly becoming the "Global Golden Rule". Sub-sest of humanity (Regions and Tribes) that fail to adapt to or accept that improved understanding will suffer consequences.
History is loaded with examples of unacceptable pursuers of Private Interest Winning for a while even though they are understandably creating harm, but ultimately suffering failure - the learning is that understandably harmful people, 'trouble-makers', need to be 'addressed' quicker and more aggressively - though never with a Death Penalty).
NorrisM @9, ha ha, yes no doubt the Paris meetings include some of Mao's talk and spin. But at least Paris 1) has the right general idea and 2) has at least some definite projects and commitments to show for things. Things have to start somewhere. They always start slow and talky, but eventually things firm up and lead to more solid action.
Enlightened people actually do know what needs to be done in terms of international assistance to poor countries. It's a case of getting voters on board, and making them see the wider benefits more fully. One thing that would help is international auditing mechanisms that ensure money is well spent, and if specific countries are unwilling to have some accountability like this, they will risk not getting assistance. We should hep countries and substantially, but we are entitled to expect some things in return.
America is going in fast reverse on many things, and in the end may find itself isolated. Trump threatens punative actions against nations who disagree with Americas agenda on various things. He should pause and remember the world is bigger than America, and nations might decide they have had enough, and may take punative actions against America. I would of course not like to see things end up like that, but it is looking inevitable.
I realize that Comments Policy of this forum includes a "no politics" policy, but in view of the following statements, I presume this policy does not apply to this particular page.
The UN sustainable development goals make perfect sense.
I completely agree with your identification of the problem: "People able to get away with pursuits of Private Interests that are impediments to the pursuit of the Global Public Interest of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals."
My criticism is of politicians who are good at making announcements but not so good at following through. If those are the troublemakers, I am not sure what you do with them other than vote them out.
What I am questioning is the willingness of developed countries to transfer a significant portion its wealth to another country in the name of climate change.
Therefore, I will feel free to speak my mind, political or otherwise. I have a doctorate degree in physics and was one of thousands of scientists working in the defense industry who lost their careers in the early 1990s with the defense downsizing that occurred with the "end of the Cold War", sometimes called the "outbreak of peace". THIS is when the United States should have started acting on AGW problems if in fact they existed. The UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report came out in 1990 which warned of possible threats posed by the enhanced greenhouse effect from human emissions, especially carbon dioxide. Also, Al Gore (first as U.S. Senator and then Vice President) started his activism on global warming, stressing the importance of reducing our fossil fuel while mentioning nothing about actually solving the problems of obtaining clean sustainable energy. To address these problems, especially with the urgency he was claiming, it requires the participation of many different scientists with various backgrounds in order to cover as many bases as possible. Oftentimes, several different technological breakthroughs are needed for a new alternative energy system to work. This is where many former defense scientists could have been put back to work, but guess what? — NO JOBS! Instead, the "peace dividend" (savings from the defense cut-backs) went into helping the former Soviet scientists, bailing out failed financial institutions, and getting involved in every skirmish in the Middle East, all with the support of Al Gore and his climate change followers. One of the scientific careers that was destroyed in the process was mine. So, I hope you understand that Al Gore is one person I am not cheering on. For a person who seems to revere "what the science says", he sure has helped to destroy lots of scientific careers.
Because of the anti-science attitude held by Al Gore and his political AGW followers, we are not nearly ready to switch over to any sort of clean sustainable energy. They only talked to scientists who could come up with good scare stories about what would happen if we don't cut back on our carbon emissions while barely mentioning the possibility of finding solutions. That, of course, would mean that more scientists and engineers would have to be hired — a commitment they did not want to make.
While some advances have been made in the area of alternative energy resources such as solar and wind, the intermittent nature of their operation makes it impossible for them to provide reliable power on their own. They may be able to mitigate the fossil fuel burning to some degree by grid-tying them to a power system run on conventional coal and nuclear fuel. Then, on sunny and/or windy days, the solar arrays and wind turbines reduce the load on the main generators, reducing the amount of fuel needed the meet power demands. Both solar and wind power, however, also have some bad side-effects that I'm not sure have ever been adequately addressed. For example, the photovoltaic cells used in the solar panels don't grow on trees. They must be manufactured and that involves toxic chemicals and lots of energy. Also, the latest manufacturing methods use nitrogen tri-flouride (NF3), a non-condensible greenhouse gas about 17000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. In the case of wind power, I have heard claims that the wind turbines are difficult and expensive to maintain and that the spinning turbine blades can be a real menace to the aviary population (ie. birds and bats) which play and important role in controlling disease carrying and crop destroying insects. With any new alternative energy source, we must ask the question of which is worse, the problem or the solution.
In addition to finding new energy source technologies, there may be ways of greatly increasing the efficiency of electric motors and generators based on existing technology. Nickola Tesla, a Serbian immigrant, has numerous patents in this area. Perhaps it is time we start dusting them off and seeing if his ideas could be of benefit in solving our current problems. Just because these patents are old does not mean they are useless or obsolete. Of course, qualified scientists and engineers would have to be hired to do this.
In view of the fact that Al Gore and the AGW community in general has done little or nothing to find solutions to the AGW problems they are preaching, I can only surmise that they themselves are not concerned about any AGW threats. Also, Al Gore has not exactly been a leader by good example with his power usage being 20-30 times as high as the average American. If they the AGW icons are not worried about such threats, why should I be?
[DB] A broad-based post such as this is not a license to trot out every diatribe and unsharpened axe and vent. Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Pluto @13 , you seem to have gotten things completely ass-backwards about Gore and the "AGW followers". Despite their manifest imperfections, you cannot seriously be proposing that the people advocating that the AGW problem be tackled . . . are somehow enormously worse than their opponents who are happily harming the planet & refusing to face the situation.
Likewise about clean sustainable energy — which would produce more jobs than coal or nuclear can.
Nuclear fission power is collapsing — it is extremely uneconomic. But you knew that, from another thread where you raised the same points.
Coal mining & burning is vastly more toxic than the photovoltaic-cell manufacture/usage cycle. And you know that, too.
Wind turbine blades killing/injuring birds — is an absolutely minuscule effect compared with other human-caused mortality of birds. (Not to mention the expected avian mortality from the advance of global warming.)
Pluto, your anger is blinding you intellectually.
Eclectic@ 14
. . . you cannot seriously be proposing that the people advocating that the AGW problem be tackled . . .
You're missing the point here. Nobody is tackling anything. What the AGW politicians want is for you and me to cowar in the corner and be accepting of more taxes and regulations and a sizeable chunk of our wealth being redistributed to third world nations. After all, they are trying to save us from the AGW threat. Well I'm not doing it! And from now on, count on leaving me and US out of this climate charade.
[DB] Off-topic snipped.
Eclectic@ 14
Likewise about clean sustainable energy — which would produce more jobs than coal or nuclear can.
Promises of jobs is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Invariably, such promises fall way short of expectations, and sometimes entire industries collapse. For example, the NAFTA and GATT treaties destroyed the entire textile industry in the US after we listened to the mumbo-jumbo about how some menial jobs might be lost to Mexico, but they would be replaced by higher paying high tech jobs in the States. WRONG! The entire industry "went south".
What's much more likely to happen with clean sustainable energy is that the AGW politicians will give lots of speeches on it but no funds, and therefore no jobs.
Pluto @16 , you might care to consider the USA southwest, where "renewable energy jobs" are increasing (if I can believe that Schwarzenegger politician). OTOH, in the northeast of the country, another (rather different) politician has promised a bigly increase of jobs in Coal & other industrials . . . but that promise has become no better than hot air. Just as you and I both expected.
Pluto @15 . . . yes, I am missing that point here. And I hope (while I retain my Christian ethics) that I will always continue to be missing that point. Always !
Pluto at 16
Many jobs are currently being created in renewable energy. Your assertion that jobs in renewable energy are empty promises is simply ignorant and wrong. Please support your wild, incorrect claim that there are not an immense number of jobs in renewable energy or withdraw your claim.
obs installing solar panels on top of houses cannot be outsourced to India.
Pluto@13:
Some responses to your claims:
1) "Al Gore (first as U.S. Senator and then Vice President) started his activism on global warming, stressing the importance of reducing our fossil fuel while mentioning nothing about actually solving the problems of obtaining clean sustainable energy."
Re-read Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It is full of truths that are inconvenient including his promotion of the need to stop burning fossil fuels and change to renewable energy sources.
2) As for the lack of 'supportive leadership': That would be the Bush Administation and the Republican Controlled House and Congress since 2010. And I agree that specific group have been incredibly deliberately unhelpful.
Renewable energy 'has to be the only source of energy' in the future. The other types, like burning fossil fuels, are Dead-ends. Terminating the burning of fossil fuels and developing the replacement requires Leadership. That type of leadership is severely lacking in politics and the economy, and not because of Al Gore and AGW activists. There really is a problem. Get focused on the real problem (hint: They like to keep what they are really doing as secret or misunderstood as possible. And they abuse misleading marketing to do that, as well as to attack threats to their Private Interest. And they also abuse misleading marketing to tempt people to be greedier and less tolerant in order for them to unjustifiably Win more of their Private Interest - connect that to Unite the Right and you are on the Right Track).
3) "Also, Al Gore has not exactly been a leader by good example with his power usage being 20-30 times as high as the average American."
How does his CO2 generation compare? He has also paid to offset CO2 his actions created. But most important, how do all the others who are comparably wealthy to Al Gore compare to Al Gore?
Pluto@13:
Regarding the 'transfer of wealth' you allude to:
The Kyoto Accord and Paris Agreement requirements for 'the people/nations that are more fortunate because they got away with more burning of fossil fuels' to charitably assist 'the less fortunate who are negatively affected by the climate changes already created and being increased by prolonging that unsustainable trouble-making activity' are simply the natural understanding of the fair corrections required for the future of humanity. And that charitable assistance includes renewable energy technology development and transfer to assist the less fortunate develop to a better way of living without transitioning through the damaging step of fossil fuel burning.
And the required fair correction to minimize the harm done to future generations is the 'charitable/helpful' rapid termination of the global burning of fossil fuels as well as the 'charitable/helpful' reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 350 ppm.
That may be 'perceived' to be 'unjustified wealth transfer', but that would be a misunderstanding. And that misuderstanding would be common among people who have developed unjustified perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the result of about 50 years of collaborative global leadership pursuit of increased awareness and better understanding. The Climate Action Goals are based on Climate Science. Achieving those goals requires increased public awareness and understanding of climate science. That requires leaders/Winners among humanity to responsibly raise awareness and understanding.
The climate science awareness and understanding is a key aspect of the SDGs. Climate change impacts many of the other SDGs. Achieving the Climate Action Goals makes it easier to achieve those other goals.
Private Interests that are contrary to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals have deliberately fought any way they can get away with to delay the inevitable trend of increased awareness and understanding that would make the Private Interest pursuers of benefit from the Damaging Dead-end Fad of burning fossil fuels (and many other developed and developing unfair harmful ways of Winning Private Interests) into the Losers they deserve to be.
I hope that increases your awareness and helps you understand what is going on, and why efforts to increase awareness of climate science are closely linked to the politics of what is going on.
I am preferring to understand things as Helpful or Harmful related to achieving the SDGs. That allows all manner of categorization to be set aside. Right-Left, Capitalist-Socialist-Communist-Anarchist, Spiritual (as opposed to dogmatic religious)-Agnostic-Athiest, Dictatorship-Democracy-Autonomous Collectives where people take turns being on the leadership team ... all can be helpful or harmful.
What I have observed (as apolitically as I am able - and others can also see/confirm if they look for it), is that the people Uniting and 'claiming' to be Right or Conservative are typically fighting against some or all of the SDGs being achieved (and all of the SDGs must be achieved for humanity to really have a better future). So that is a clarification I will try to make in the future rather than simply calling Unite the Right wrong/harmful.
Eclectic @18
In regard to your Christian ethics, I believe the commandment says "Thou shalt not steal", and to my knowledge, it was never amended to give governments an exemption.
michael sweet @19
The jobs discussed in the link you provided were a small drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. As I stated @13 (but the "moderators" snipped), the intermittent nature of solar and wind power makes their use unfeasible except possibly as a grid-tie in a system with a more reliable main source such as coal or nuclear. If that's not good enough, then blame Al Gore and his Washington comrades for wasting the capabilities of thousands of scientists and engineers who could have made advances in these critical technologies such that we don't feel in such dire straights now. At this point, all I can say is that if the AGW believers/advocates are correct, then we are toast, period.
(-snip-)
[DB] Off-topic ideological rant snipped.
Pluto @22 et seq. :-
(A) "Render unto Caesar . . . "
(B) Was the Good Samaritan "stolen from" by the victim he helped?
Pluto, your knowledge of ethics seems as deficient as your knowledge of energy storage.
The Good Samaritan helped the victim out of his own free will. He was not taxed or coerced by his government in any way. Big difference!
I'm not sure how the topic of energy storage came up, but if you are thinking in terms of storing clean energy from solar or wind sources, you better think differently. No battery (or array of batteries) even comes close to being able to deliver the kind of power needed for the heavy machinery in factories, farms, or even workshops.
Back in 2009, I asked our electrician about expanding our (residential) solar array, possibly adding wind power, so that we could be "off-grid" and not have any power bills. He told me that we would first have to change our stove and clothes dryer from electric to gas (propane) because either one would totally drain the battery bank within a few minutes. If we are running into these kinds of problems just to make "clean sustainable energy" work for a house, just imagine what we would be up against in trying to make it work for an entire city!
Additionally, batteries are heavy, expensive, and involve toxic waste (mostly sulfuric acid) which is making environmentists unhappy even now. Just wait until they are produced and disposed of on a much larger scale. Also, a battery that is 65 percent efficient is considered to be a darned good battery.
Then there is the issue of DC to AC conversion. Electrical energy stored in batteries is in the form of DC (ie. fixed positive or negative voltage) whereas plugin appliances generally run on AC (ie. sinusoidally varying voltage). The devices needed for the conversion further cut down on efficiency and may place limitations on the amount of power the battery bank can supply. Also, long distance transmission of DC power is totally unfeasible — a lesson that Thomas Edison learned way back when.
The bottom line here is that when generating clean sustainable energy, use it or lose it! There is no storing it.
Eclectic @25
There is one other point I forgot to make in my previous posting @26. I'm not sure who you mean by "Caesar" but the UN is no "Caesar" to me nor to President Donald Trump. As I keep saying, leave me and US out of this climate charade.
[JH] Excessive repetition snipped. Your repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means that you are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on this venue.
Pluto , I have no wish "to rain on your charade" [excuse awful pun]
. . . but you are so angry, that you forget that there are many other forms of energy storage than batteries.
btw, "Caesar" is a metaphor for your civic duty.
And as for the Good Samaritan — he chose to do the right thing. Something which you have difficulty with, it seems.
The Paris Climate Change Agreement, though weak and feeble (and voluntary!) is at least some sort of start in doing what's right. And the Good Samaritan would approve of it, don't you think, Pluto?
Eclectic @28
If you know about electrical energy sources better than batteries, please let me know what they are and where to find them. I'm hoping to build a power backup system that will protect all of our computers without having to buy a separate UPS for each one. Also, I would much prefer the conventional 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage over the square wave that UPSs generally deliver. As I said in my previous posting, however, the best my electrician could come up with was a bank of one or two dozen 12 V lead-acid batteries. Between that and the expense of expanding our solar array and/or adding a wind turbine, I decided to simply stay with the grid-tie arrangement.
Pluto,
Your argument that energy canot be stored to run the entire economy because you are unable to find an energy storage device for your home (you apparently cannot locate Tesla on your computer) does not make sense. By the same logic we cannot launch a satalite into space because gunpowder does not have enough energy and cannot have commercial airplanes because rubber bands cannot power them. Technologies to run the economy are different from those needed for individual houses.
You need to read much more and learn about the technologies that are proposed for the future. Arguing that you are not aware of these solutions is not convincing.
Ploto@24,
Anyone or any group whose life actions have absloutely no negative impact on anyone else can be 'left out of it'. They are essentially choosing to be irrelevant, which is fine.
The undeniable trend of developing awareness and understanding is that the 'Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations' is not going to be tolerated by Humanity.
Recommended supplemental reading about energy storage — especially for Pluto.
Elon Musk’s giant lithium ion battery in South Australia has responded in record time to the first power failure since it was installed as a back up power source.
It comes just weeks after Musk won a $US13 million bet that he would supply South Australia with the Tesla battery within 100 days or it was free.
State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the investment in the battery has already proved its worth, exceeding expectations in its first test.
Tesla's giant battery has already responded to a power failure in South Australia by Sarah Kimmorley, World Economic Forum (WEF), Dec 21, 2017
That's great if you now have a battery that can get you through a power failure. Evidently, there have been some developments in this technolgy of which I was not aware. However, there is still a big gap between a battery getting a city through a power failure and a battery that can act as the primary power source for a city. If it takes several days for the battery to recharge from a power failure that lasted only a few hours, then it is sadly inadequate as an energy storage device for a purely sustainable power system. Since every "clean energy" source nowadays can produce power only in certain weather conditions (ie. wind or sunshine) I would hate to bet on those batteries being recharged adequately.
Lithium ion batteries are better and cheaper than lead acid. Unfortunately, I had to purchase lead acid for my boat because Tesla does not make small (1 kW) batteries yet. For your house look at the reference I cited in my last post to you.
Jacobson 2015 describes using hydrogen as primary storage for electricity. Using fuel cells to regenerate the electricity would be very efficient. Jacobson models the US power supply (all power, not just electricity) and finds that renewable energy can easily supply all power as reliably as fossil fuels. Jacobson finds that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Other researchers recommend using electrofuels (methane or liquids) generated using renewable electricity and CO2 from the air. These have the advantage that all the storage facilities and technology are already built. Since you have a PhD I am sure you can follow up using references that have cited Jacobson 2015. Scientists that research energy are confident that renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) can supply the entire economy for the entire world. They generally do not like nuclear (with a few exceptions) or fossil fuels.
I am sorry that you are so far behind in this discussion. Perhaps reading Jacobson 2015 and a selection of the papers that cite it will bring you more up to date. I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
michael sweet @34
I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.
There is a good reason why I may not be quite up-to-date on many scientific/technological developments. In my case, there is no "need to know". I have no job in this field (nor any other field, actually) and I simply can't afford such batteries, not even the home version that recently came out. What happened was that we bought what generating equipment we could based on the technology available at the time (about 10 years ago). Some of it is based on propane use. Also, we have a wood pellet stove and solar heating to supplement our propane furnace. This is the best we can do under the circumstances, and we can't afford to be further taxed and regulated for doing so. If this isn't good enough, you are welcome to cover our expenses for the upgrades you deem necessary.
One Planet Only Forever @31
Where did you get that quote
"Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations"
and what's meant by "unsustainable actions"?
Pluto,
I am sorry that your limited finances result in your being unable to read the relevant literature (or blog posts like SkS). You seem focused on money. For the record, I am not paid anything to educate you. As I pointed out, I also currently cannot afford Lithium batteries (they will likely be cheaper than lead acid in two or three years).
Since you complain about cost so much, I am amazed that you are unwilling to switch over to the cheapest form of energy, wind and solar, and favor nuclear, the most expensive energy. The price of renewable energy is going down and drives down consumer prices where ever it is installed. Fossil is holding out because utilities can stiff customers more for it than renewable energy.
A very large fraction of fossil energy infrastructure is old and requires replacement. If we build new fossil fuel plants the money will be wasted at the same time the environment is destroyed. Economically it makes more sense to stop building fossil plants and build out only renewable energy. The nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia are an example of wasted money consumers have to pay for.
In any case, what you can afford for energy has nothing to do with keeping up to date on the energy debate. Read more and keep an open mind. Coming to SkS and lecturing us on energy policy using outdated information does not help advance the conversation.
michael sweet @ 34 and Pluto @ 35
As I have referenced before on this website, in my view, any reference to the Jacobson 2015 paper on a 100% renewable energy solution for the US must now have an asterisk opposite any reference to it since the Clack et al 2017 paper (published in PNAS) has now seriously questioned some of the assumptions used by Jacobson in arrving at this 100% renewable energy solution.
Pluto, if you want further information on this, just google "Jacobson/Clack litigation". Jacobson, in a widely criticized action which could have serious repercussions on academic discourse, has sued Clack, a NASA scientist, for some $10 MM.
The biggest assumption by Jacobson is that although predicted hydrocapacity in the US for 2050 is somewhere around 87.5 GW Jacobson assumes 1,300 GW will be available as base load backup power (some 15 times higher than actual) based upon unrealistic assumptions regarding upgrading turbines by massive amounts, the costs of which are not properly included in the analysis nor are questions about how realistic this assumption is dealt with in the paper.
Bottom line is that the Jacobson 2015 paper should not be cited any longer without qualifications and disclosure of the serious questions which have been raised about this paper.
Pluto@36,
A Fad is something that becomes popular among a portion of the total human population for a limited period of time (my own version of the definition)
A sustainable activity would be human activity that could continue to be done by humans almost indefinitely on this 'planet which is essentially a perpetual motion machine for life - made almost perpetual by the reasonably steady delivery of new energy from the Sun'.
Trying to benefit from rapidly burning up non-renewable buried hydrocarbons is "Not Sustainable". It is a Fad. And future success is obtained by paying attention to Trends toward developing sustainable activity, not staying locked in unjustified beliefs regarding Fads.
Fads can be damaging as well as unsustainable. That is clearly true regarding the Fad of burning fossil fuels.
Many people unfortunately have to change their minds about what would be a sustainable way to live and earn a living but are very reluctant to change their minds. Changing their minds will be more successful for them in the long term than trying to remain stubbornly locked into unjustified beliefs. But their developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity are difficult to correct.
I really appreciate that understanding because I live in Alberta, Canada. A large portion of the population still sadly believes that things will be Great Again if they could just sell more of 'their Oil Sands' (an incorrect claim because 'they' did nothing to create it-and many of them only recently moved into the Province), to be burned elsewhere on the planet. Unfortunately they had chosen to try to earn a living doing something undeniably unsustainable and understandably harmful, a Bad Fad.
Norrism:
Clack et al's criticism of Jacobson 2015 has not been widely supported. The jury is still out on who is correct.
A brief review of the "cited by" papers of Jacobson 2015 yield at least six that independently claim that renewable energy can power the entire world (see below). Since AGW solutions is not one of the primary goals of SkS, Jacobson is one of the few reviewed at SkS.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3028519
http://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/1674
Link to Christian Breyer's conference paper on Solar Photovoltaics (via Researchgate)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117305244
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7750284/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173820
[BW] Fixed the very long link to Research Gate as it was breaking the page layout. Please remember to properly embed links via the "Insert tab". Thanks!
michael sweet @ 40
It will be interesting to see what happens with this litigation. It seems quite clear that the PNAS decided to publish the Clack paper after having heard all of Jacobson's objections.
Jacobson's "assumption" relying on multiplying US hydro capacity by 15 fold (without discussing in his paper how realistic such an assumption was) just confirms to me why I wish I had not wasted my undergraduate degree on economics rather than take something that would have stayed with me like a degree in History or English Literature.
It reminds me of the joke about the engineer, architect and economist stranded on a deserted island with only a can of beans to eat. The engineer proposed that they build a fire and place the can on the fire so that it would explode to access the beans. The architect suggested building a structure around the fire to catch the beans as the can exploded. The economist then contributed: "Assuming we had a can opener ......"
Norrism
Fortunately, we do not need to wait for Jacobson/Clack to resolve to reach a resolutionn. As I have shown, many researchers have independently reached the same conclusion as Jacobson. Those researchers used different models and did not use extra hydropower. That indicates that the weight of evidence is supporting Jacobson. Clack has few citations and a lack of support.
Jacobson 2015 itself indicates that they found many solutions and they only showed one. Hydro produces only 3% of the power in the system, it is primarily used for power on windless nights. While it is useful, it is so small a percentage of the system that eliminating hydro completely would only affect the result a little. Jacobson will simply have to choose a solution with a little more storage in another option. Incorporating demand shiftting alone would more than compensate for overuse of hydro, and would be essentially free.
The body of research on renewable power indicates that it is possible to generate all power using renewable resources.
Norris and Michael,
Energy sources that are non-renewable are of no value in the future. They get more expensive as they become virtually impossible. And if they create negative future consequences then those energy sources are harmful to the future.
The easiest ways to make fossil fuel burning less expensive than it should be into the future is to continue to do what has already unfortunately been done, allow them to be more damaging than they have to be (do not impose requirements for negative impacts to be fully immediately neutralized).
And the games of popularity and profitability are full of examples of Winners in the games being discovered to be the most harmful of the competitors, the ones who got away with behaving the least acceptably. Yet that is ignored in many Economic Theory Thoughts.
So the developed economics are an understandably damaging and unsustainable set of beliefs. The presumptions that 'aware and rational people focused on sustainably improving the future for all of humanity are the vast majority of the players in the game' is easily shown to be false (was able to be seen for what it was decades ago), with many Economists being less rational Private Interest focused people. And yet the 'games filed with Fad popularity of damaging unsustainable profitability that Wins so much more easily than truly sustainable development' remains a powerful Dogma, delusion, perception (and perception is not always a sustainable reality) - because it serves the interests of the current day Winners to have it continue to be popular.
However, the Trend is clearly towards Sustainable Development. The inevitable future is an end to the damaging misunderstandings that currently still have significant power. And the way to a better future quicker is the types of changes that the Paris Agreement is leading to, especially the 'requirements' being ratcheted up every few years.
There will undeniably still be attempts by 'perceived to be Winners who understand how much they stand to lose' to fight against the more rapid improvement of the future for humanity. How much damage the trouble-makers will be able to get away with is all that is being debated in competitions between articles about how rapidly the inevitable end of unsustainable and damaging energy production and consumption will occur.
The ability to get away with marketing appeals for people to desire things other than Sustainable Development and for people who Win by abusing that understanding is the root of the problem.
The root problem is the power of misleading marketing to tempt people to focus on Private Interests that are contrary to helping others and contrary to the changes required to develop a sustainable better future for all. And that damaging power of misleading marketing is also the challenge SkS is focused on regarding Climate Science.
Regarding jobs in renewable energy:
"As fossil energy has turned down, investments in renewable energy are rising fast. The U.S. solar sector has grown to about 40 manufacturing plants, over 9,000 installation companies and 260,000 employees, according to the Solar Energy Industries Assn., the industry’s major trade group in Washington. (By contrast, 53,420 people work in the coal industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)" from the Los Angeles Times