'Yes we can' switch to 100 percent renewable energy

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.dw.com/en/yes-we-can-switch-to-100-percent-renewable-energy/a-19085227

[font face=Serif][font size=5]'Yes we can' switch to 100 percent renewable energy[/font]

[font size=4] European Union environment ministers are discussing implementation of the Paris Agreement on Friday (04.03.). A timely transition out of fossil fuels is doable, says Alexander Och from Earthwatch. That is, if we act now.[/font]

[font size=3] Not only can we do a transition to truly sustainable systems - financially, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable - we are in the midst of it. There is no one global trend in that direction, but there are many places, municipalities, provinces, whole countries, regions that are transitioning away from fossil fuels toward renewable ways of producing energy, and smarter ways of consuming energy. So it is absolutely doable.

...

Germany has managed over the last two decades to transition away from fossil fuels. We have seen enormous growth rates of renewable electricity production. Or take Denmark, which has always been seen as a renewable energy champion. But it's not a trend restricted any more to developed countries.

Look at Costa Rica, look at many places on all continents - you find very dramatic examples, transitions away from fossil fuel energy toward sustainable energy sources - not always at the level of nations, but often sub-federal levels like communities or provinces. We have a lot of really great examples now, best practice examples. We really have to learn from experience and share that experience internationally.

...[/font][/font]

[Hydra]

1. Not only can we, we have to

The old fossils trying to prevent transitioning are simply causing more damage. We could have and should have done this decades ago, but now we may not have enough time to turn back the clock.

[Binkie The Clown]

2. Europeans use considerably less power per capita than Americans, so

to succeed at this Americans will have to make some major changes to their lifestyle.

[dumbcat]

3. Very true

It may have something to do with the fact that electricity there costs three times as much as what we consider normal. My friends in Munich pay the equivalent of $0.36 per kilowatt hour. But their flats are much smaller than our norm and they don't seem to mind.

[kristopher]

8. Like what? Building energy efficient homes, businesses and autos?

How is more insulation, LED bulbs and electric vehicles a major lifestyle change?

[Binkie The Clown]

9. I've read convincing arguments that it can't be done without major changes.

I found those arguments compelling at the time I read them. However, to be perfectly honest, I am not well versed enough in the technological issues to argue the case myself, so I have to be content with saying that what I have read convinced me. If you ask me to defend that position, I am not competent to do so. I guess the best I can offer is to suggest you review the relevant data, and see if you also find it compelling. You may not be convinced. An awful lot of very intelligent people are convinced, but an awful lot of very intelligent people are not convinced. So all I can say with any certainty is that time will tell, and until then, I'll do what I can to reduce my own energy load, if for no other reason than it saves me money on my monthly electric bill.

[kristopher]

10. Yes, well....

... I guess the best I can offer is to suggest you review the relevant data, and see if you also find it compelling. ..

The thing is, that's what I do - review the relevant data. And I'd be happy to hear (and this isn't limited) more about what you feel/think/assume/imagine/believe would be involved in the area of lifestyle change. Not to debate, but perhaps for us both to learn? I'm focused on the way people perceive the matter of an energy transition.

[GliderGuider]

4. And not a word about transportation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Clearly, there’s no point in doing anything…

…if we do not immediately address everything.

Really, what's the point in addressing the largest share of our energy usage?

Nope! Don’t do anything at all! Let it burn!

.

.

.

Unless of course, they are addressing that 24%…
http://www.worldwatch.org/programs/energy_climate
http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/trends/11

.

.

.

No, of course they aren’t. Stupid simpleminded, short-sighted, so-called “environmentalists…”

[GliderGuider]

6. I don't like lies of omission that make things seem easier than they are.

I'll do whatever I think is useful. However, nibbling away at the edges of a minority of the world's energy consumption, or championing that forlorn hope on the internet doesn't seem useful to me. If it does to you, by all means have at it. I won't lift a finger to stop you.

But your implicit accusation right on target - I really don't mind if it all goes away. In fact, I take delight in tracking the approach of the cliff's edge, and cheering as we barrel heedlessly towards it. It will all burn sooner or later anyway, and the sooner the better IMO.

My last 12 years on DU have helped turn me into a total misanthrope.

[GliderGuider]

7. And not a word about reducing energy consumption...

...in order to make the expansion of dangerous energy sources like nuclear power, fossil fuels, hydro and renewables unnecessary.

Not a word about overshoot.
Not a word about energy's role in habitat destruction, over-fishing, deforestation or competitive exclusion leading to the extinction of wildlife.
Not a word about the impact of an 18 terawatt civilization on the natural world.

Clueless little fellers, these humans.

[The2ndWheel]

11. Wouldn't doubt it. We're good at getting around limits.

Not only can we do a transition to truly sustainable systems - financially, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable - we are in the midst of it.

Two issues with it though. Sustainable for what? And, there's no perfect state to existence.

We're worried about the sustainability of the progress of humanity. Right off the bat, we get into the state of existence thing. Plus, it's perfectly fine to be worried about ourselves, and ourselves alone. That's what life does. The lion doesn't worry about the zebra, and the zebra doesn't worry about the lion, in terms of how they're doing.

We shouldn't pretend it's anything other than selfishness on our part though. We want more. Renewable energy, sustainable systems, etc, it's all for us to have more. Just think of all the energy that hits the Earth that we never use! We want everything. We want to control as much as we can. There are upsides to that, and there are downsides to it. There's going to be a cost, on the journey there, and at the destination if we ever get to that perfect state of existence where nothing ever changes other than humanity getting better.

If it was about the environment, we could just do less. We don't even need to use energy to increase efficiency to do that. If we, as a society, a global civilization, whatever, would just admit that it's about greed. We dislike that word, a lot, but it's ok. Finding a cure for this or that, that's greed. Setting up farms, whether livestock or plant, is greed. Something called retirement, that's greed. We wouldn't have to tangle ourselves into mental knots if we just accepted it.

[Nihil]

12. "Yes we can" != "Yes we will"

There will be progress - hopefully lots of it - in both conservation/efficiency and
replacement of fossil fuel with renewable (electric) energy but it will take a couple
of major catastrophic events followed by brutal & unwelcome changes before
enough people actually get the message of how *necessary* and *urgent* this
transition really is.

Even then, there will always be the rich ("I will do it wastefully because I can&quot
and the ignorant ("Don't wanna 'cos Freedumb!&quot around to prevent 100% ever
being reached.