Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Energy-related CO2 emissions hit highest ever level in 2021: IEA (cnbc.com)

he IEA found energy-related global CO2 emissions increased by 6% in 2021 to reach a record high of 36.3 billion metric tons. In an analysis published Tuesday, the Paris-based organization pinpointed coal use as being the main driver behind the growth.

At some point, the hand wringing about this is going to meet reality, and folks MIGHT, just MIGHT, start being realistic about the future.  Maybe.  I expect more hand wringing for now.

I mean the practicable reality is these goals folks set are optics, they aren't going to be met.  I wondered when that would be so obvious it would become accepted generally.  The first part of this is to report data and wring hands and say "WE HAVE TO DO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!" and the second step is "Huh, we really can't do much more, so this is our situation, maybe we should step back a bit and think about our approach."

Germany really tried to hit this hard over the past decade, "Energiewiend" or however they spell it.  The actual results for them is near catastrophic, for minimal reductions in CO2 generation, and they did about as much as anyone could do.  It cost them heavily, for a very small "benefit".

Cost:benefit is important.  Folks will slowly start to explain reality to folks instead of signing pointless ridiculous agreements thinking that was a something.

You can disagree, but the math is against you.  My comments really relate to when "leaders" and "experts" confess we're not only NOT doing enough, we CAN'T do enough (sans nuclear).  I can post report after report about CO2 growth over time and how little anything real has been, or could be, done about it that is significant.

I can also cherry pick isolated situations about how "Hamden, Washington" is CARBON NEUTRAL today!!!  Fairy dust.

I don't see a practicable solution here, at all, which is why no one has proposed one anywhere.

You can disagree, but the math is against you.  My comments really relate to when "leaders" and "experts" confess we're not only NOT doing enough, we CAN'T do enough (sans nuclear).  I can post report after report about CO2 growth over time and how little anything real has been, or could be, done about it that is significant.

I can also cherry pick isolated situations about how "Hamden, Washington" is CARBON NEUTRAL today!!!  Fairy dust.

I don't see a practicable solution here, at all, which is why no one has proposed one anywhere.

Well, that's the trick. Even in the post about math being against me, you have to add the qualifier about nuclear power, which is like saying you can't travel to California from Maine in a day (sans planes).

If you think nuclear power is a practicable solution here, well, have at it.  It may be a technical piece of the puzzle, but NIMBY is not going to allow it and it isn't viewed as "green" by most folks most incensed over climate change.  Germany is trying to shut theirs down.  The US is slowly moving there as plants get too old and no new ones outside Vogtle are being built.

MAYBE SMRs might be something, in what, a decade?  Maybe?  When will the next US nuclear power plant outside Vogtle and the military come on line?

China has something like 228 nuclear reactors in development. The issue isn't whether is practicable, it's whether there is anyone who cares enough to make it happen.

I disagree. To much effort is made for "cost benefit" analyses that really don't make any sense. It is too much "ooh, we can't possibly do anything." Paralysis by analysis. Fairly standard stuff for any big problem that is hard to solve.

The problem with the cost benefit analysis is that we are WOEFULLY bad at defining the benefit...

If the benefit is avoiding a scenario where the world's climate destabilizes to the point where we can only produce enough food to support ~1B people by 2100, which would lead to mass starvation, likely wars over access to natural resources, and the deaths of billions? Well, then any cost is worth bearing. 

If the benefit is avoiding a scenario where the weather gets hotter but we can still grow food, where some people in marginal areas are displaced due to changes but it happens over decades and those people can be managed and absorbed into new environs, and the effects of dealing with climate changed are something we manage and live with vs something catastrophic? Well, then there isn't much reason to completely remake our energy supply at massive cost for that benefit. 

So... Which is it? 

And please, show your work.