Big traditional corporates to go green and some have failed their pledge ongoing green - https://good-with-money.com/2020/09/21/wealth-emissions-gap-shock-as-burberry-goes-green/
I don’t buy into the idea that the dreaded “1%” have simply released twice as much CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) as the rest of us.
We need to break that down. Are they lumping up all the industrial infrastructure that the “one-percenters” manage? Well, then we’re all beneficiaries from it, and as a result, guilty.
Besides, (and I am no denier of human-driven climate change) I don’t think the solution is to simply halt our economy until it fits a utopic quota of emission. That will first and foremost impact us drastically and potentially push us into poverty, and secondly, it will face substantial back-lash so it’s not a practical solution to just “demand” no emission.
The only effective way to cut down on emissions is by investing in people. As people become more affluent they tend to care for their environment. Great minds will produce systems of higher efficiency and wealthier people will be able to fund them and make use of their products. All of that boils down to improving the living standards of people, really. That is how people become wealthier, smarter and more caring towards the ecosystem.
As a side-note, alternative energy sources (the likes of wind and solar) take a tremendous time before they pay off their carbon footprint. With the exception of nuclear, which is arguably our greatest contemporary option.
One answer is to consume less overall. One way to do that which is rarely talked about as it is politically sensitive is to reduce the population of the planet. That can be done over generations if we all take responsibility for how many new humans we produce. It does present problems in itself as you would start to reduce the younger population as the population on average gets older.
Various studies have been done about this and the time taken for a wind turbine to payback its carbon emissions taking in to account the carbon intensive fuels it replaces can be less than a year.
It’s one way (and a good way), not the only way
There will be no such thing as 0% in the next 10-15 years, however, the aim is to get there and by slowing decreasing. To be clear it is better to invest in a company that Is trying to reduce it’s emissions even if it has reduced by 5% than a company that doesn’t.
One answer to this is to support the right to repair and teach kids how to do it in school
Also we should be racking companies on the knuckles with a ruler when they try frustrating the process e.g. Apple!
They should provide official parts that will work without any silliness until they stop supporting the phone itself, then they should disable any warnings that may arise from using third party parts, since they aren’t supporting it anyways !
Yes, absolutely. If the Fairphone had a better spec I might be persuaded to change to Android
Many of these studies are prone to the misuse of statistics for PR circle-jerking. It’s frankly utterly inconceivable to compare renewables (with the exception of nuclear) to conventional sources. Be it in terms of environmental damage due to mining & durability or energy output. Solar and wind require far more materials as well as rarer elements in their construction, as much as 2000% more materials, and they come with a much shorter usage expectancy.
There is also a theoretical limit to how much energy you can extract per square meter in both wind and solar, and we are fairly near the theoretical limits.
That is beside the fact that the inherent volatility of the energy yields in solar and wind renders it rather impractical to suffice to power our cities. As it’s fundamentally dependent on the current climate. If it’s cloudy you gain far less energy, if it’s night-time you can kiss any energy buh-bye, and a similar argument can be made for wind speed. And no, batteries in their current form are in no way a solution.
It’d take a company like Tesla 500 years to produce enough batteries to store just a single day’s worth of US energy demands. It’s completely infeasible and horrendously costly. Alternative forms of energy storage like pumped storage hydroelectric reservoirs or graphene battery might change that a bit though.
This short video nails it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
Going Nuclear is the most economically sound decision besides conventional sources. Going solar & wind primarily is a strategy that is sure to backfire. Just look at Germany’s electricity prices shooting up because they bought into the “Green Deal” facade a bit too much. To the point that they had to buy power from France at times, as the French focused more on nuclear and therefore their energy is much cheaper.
Just to mention that the U.K. is actually placed as one of the better countries to roll out wind power, as we have large swatches of land and could potentially even build very well fortified things on our coast or even slightly out to sea, to power our country
But I am all in for nuclear, I believe it is indeed the correct future of sustainable energy for countries that don’t have as good an ability to generate their own power from the climate
Edit: changed renewable to sustainable as nuclear is not renewable as @dave.b rightly stated
Just to be clear, nuclear is currently not renewable it is low carbon. I’m not against it and feel it has a future role to play but we need to get the terminology right