[Ecodharma] Marc Jacobson claims we can transition to 100% renewables soon (article)

[Kokuu]

Hi all

In his new book, No Miracles Needed: How Today's Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air, the Stanford professor of engineering, Mark Jacobson, states that we have 95% of the technology we need to transition to renewable energies in the very near future, the remaining 5% being in relation to long-haul flights.

He makes a case for moving to 80% renewable energy by 2030, and near 100% by 2050.

Others have pointed out that, given our current global reliance on fossil fuels stands at around 80%, that is overly optimistic. However, Jacobson claims to have the figures to back this up. He is also critical of technologies such as carbon capture and storage which he believes only exist as a way of keeping fossil fuel companies in business. Rather than developing new technologies, he insists that the answer is in using what we have right now in terms of wind, solar and wave energy, battery storage and electric cars.

What do you think, is Jacobson a visionary, or rather delusional in his thinking? I guess from my perspective I am of the view that if we go all out for as much renewable energy production as we can, and fail to hit any of those target years, at least we are still massively moving in the right direction. And in terms of Active Hope, he is definitely looking beyond Business as Usual and making a plan for the Great Turning, rather than feeling powerless in the face of change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Tai Do]

Thank you, Kokuu, for sharing.
I agree with you that it is very important for the Great Turning story.
Gassho,
Tai Do (Mateus)
Satlah

[Jishin]

It could be argued that Jacobson's proposal for transitioning to 80% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050 is delusional because it may not be profitable for certain industries and actors who are heavily invested in fossil fuels. The energy industry is a major source of revenue and employment, and many powerful companies and individuals have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel dependence. Additionally, the cost of transitioning to renewable energy may be high in the short term, which could be a barrier to implementation.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect that the majority of countries, especially developing countries, will be able to make the swift transition to renewable energy, as fossil fuels are still cheaper and more easily accessible. These countries may not have the financial resources to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and may prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns.

Jacobson's proposal may be ambitious and may face significant obstacles, such as lack of financial incentives and resistance from powerful actors invested in the fossil fuel industry.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Tai Do]

It could be argued that Jacobson's proposal for transitioning to 80% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050 is delusional because it may not be profitable for certain industries and actors who are heavily invested in fossil fuels. The energy industry is a major source of revenue and employment, and many powerful companies and individuals have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel dependence. Additionally, the cost of transitioning to renewable energy may be high in the short term, which could be a barrier to implementation.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect that the majority of countries, especially developing countries, will be able to make the swift transition to renewable energy, as fossil fuels are still cheaper and more easily accessible. These countries may not have the financial resources to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and may prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns.

Jacobson's proposal may be ambitious and may face significant obstacles, such as lack of financial incentives and resistance from powerful actors invested in the fossil fuel industry.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

Indeed it is idealistic, Jishin, even delusional; but I think we may need some idealistic utopia even if it is only for the propaganda value of showing that it is possible, not much likely, but at least possible.
Gassho,
Tai Do (Mateus)
Satlah

[Kokuu]

I think that it is unrealistic to expect that the majority of countries, especially developing countries, will be able to make the swift transition to renewable energy, as fossil fuels are still cheaper and more easily accessible. These countries may not have the financial resources to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and may prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns.

Economically, I think it will soon be possible to make the argument that investing in more fossil fuel power is a dead end so countries won't have to choose between economics and environment. Many developing countries also have far more to lose in terms of economic damage from climate change. Whether it can happen as quickly as Jacobson thinks is more debatable.

As far as resistance by fossil fuel lobbyists goes, that has been happening since the 1970s, and I don't expect it will change anytime soon.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Jishin]

I think that countries that prioritize power and wealth over environmental concerns will continue to exploit fossil fuels, even if it leads to environmental damage. This is because the economic benefits of fossil fuels, such as revenue and job creation, outweigh the potential negative impacts on the environment. Additionally, the existing infrastructure and industries surrounding fossil fuels make it difficult and costly to transition to green energy. Even if green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, these countries may still choose to use fossil fuels due to political and financial incentives to maintain their dependence on them.

Society cannot universally agree on environmental issues, as perspectives on these issues vary widely based on cultural, economic, and political factors. Some may prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, while others may prioritize preserving natural resources for future generations. Not all countries have the same level of resources and infrastructure to support the transition to green energy, making it more challenging for some nations to make the switch. Addressing these challenges to implementing green energy will require a global collaboration, including financial and technical assistance to countries that need it, and a universal agreement on the importance of environmental protection. I just don’t see humanity collaborating on this issue to the degree required.

My wife and I drive EV cars. They are great but not cheap. Financially, it would have made better sense to burn fossils.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Spiritdove]

if humanity can decide to go to the moon and beyond. I am sure they can fix our climate crisis if they wanted to. I would have to see the evidence first. I don't use faith or belief. I do however think its possible but it will take a lot more then sitting on my rear to do it. As well as humanity.

Marj "Spiritdove"
Sat Today

[Jishin]

if humanity can decide to go to the moon and beyond. I am sure they can fix our climate crisis if they wanted to. I would have to see the evidence first. I don't use faith or belief. I do however think its possible but it will take a lot more then sitting on my rear to do it. As well as humanity.

Marj "Spiritdove"
Sat Today

While the necessary steps to fix the environment may be known, the lack of willingness or motivation among a sufficient number of individuals may prevent those steps from being taken.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Doshin]

While the necessary steps to fix the environment may be known, the lack of willingness or motivation among a sufficient number of individuals may prevent those steps from being taken.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

My concern as well.

Doshin
St

[Tai Do]

I think that countries that prioritize power and wealth over environmental concerns will continue to exploit fossil fuels, even if it leads to environmental damage. This is because the economic benefits of fossil fuels, such as revenue and job creation, outweigh the potential negative impacts on the environment. Additionally, the existing infrastructure and industries surrounding fossil fuels make it difficult and costly to transition to green energy. Even if green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, these countries may still choose to use fossil fuels due to political and financial incentives to maintain their dependence on them.

Society cannot universally agree on environmental issues, as perspectives on these issues vary widely based on cultural, economic, and political factors. Some may prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, while others may prioritize preserving natural resources for future generations. Not all countries have the same level of resources and infrastructure to support the transition to green energy, making it more challenging for some nations to make the switch. Addressing these challenges to implementing green energy will require a global collaboration, including financial and technical assistance to countries that need it, and a universal agreement on the importance of environmental protection. I just don’t see humanity collaborating on this issue to the degree required.

My wife and I drive EV cars. They are great but not cheap. Financially, it would have made better sense to burn fossils.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

I think you are entirely right. I struggle not to enter in despair about our future in this beautiful blue planet; but sometimes its too difficult. On the other hand, although not fast enough, I see a gradual change in some issues, like solar panels being more and more common (although immorally expensive: my wife and I spent all our reserves and made a loan in order to put the panels in our new house). As long as environmentally friendly actions and products remain more expensive than the alternatives, people, especially those whose income is not as good as in the developed countries, will inevitably tend toward the environmentally damaging ones. And as people turn towards green energy, the taxation of these sources increases (we didn't have a tax for using solar panels for powering our homes, but the last government establish one in order to protect the traditional big energy companies here - I think this is true in other developing countries as well).

I can be wrong, but the main issue for me is overpopulation. Our economic system relies on there being a lot of people being born, in order for production to grow, for workers salaries to be small and for consumerism to expand even more. More and more energy is needed, so more and more fossil fuels are burned (the economically more profitable option).

This was the main reason my wife and I decided not to have kids with our own DNA - not to put more people in this already overpopulated world - and opt to adopt instead (a decision we made long before we adopt our 3 beautiful and very active daughters who entered our life in 2021). Not many people are willing to do this - those who adopt still face a lot of ugly comments by relatives and people who can only be described as genetically egotistic.

But even so, I found researches like this one that Kokuu showed a necessity for people to be aware of what we can do, if only we became united in one goal. We even have the precedent of the CFC in our global history of environmental issues that were addressed globally. We can do it again with fossil fuels (although this time, the lobby against change is much greater).

Sorry for running long.

Gassho
Tai Do (Mateus)
Satlah