No, it's not so simple - Climate crisis options
If we don't finally get serious about sustainable living and economic activity, we will soon only be in emergency, rescue and rebuilding mode.
It should be clear that this will become increasingly unaffordable.
It was foreseeable that we now have to change many things simultaneously and quickly because we have been inactive for too long. The longer we wait, the more expensive everything will become. Unfortunately, the (still) numerous laggards are not aware of any guilt and participate only reluctantly and half-heartedly, often hypocritically, in the much needed reconstruction of society and economy.
In addition, we should urgently restore the biodiversity and biomass that we destroyed in record time, because without this self-healing power nature has no chance against us.
Since we can only do all this from a position of economic strength and also have to make up for the gaps that, for example, a Bolsonaro tears and there are also no ethically justifiable, realistic scenarios to bring the world population growth quickly to a tolerable level, we are not really left with many options. Also in view of those whose only contribution consists of relativizing, slowing down and inactivity or even resistance.
Bridging technologies must help maintain our economic strength but we must also aggressively transition them to the next, sustainable generations.
Global ‘alliances of the willing and able’ must direct large amounts of investment toward innovation for sustainability.
One obvious problem: population growth
Unfortunately, this is a rather complex issue.
Because it could quickly become ethically questionable to fascistoid and because there are no really simple solutions.
A reaction to population growth would only have an effect in decades. Often a high birth rate is the only social and life security and/or has cultural or religious connotations. And we all know how easy it is to change those. So it all takes far too long.
Moreover, the ecological footprint of low-birth-rate peoples is many times that of high-birth-rate peoples: Correlation between HDI and Ecological Footprint | Knowledge for policy (europa.eu)
So, in order to regulate resource consumption noticeably via population growth, developed peoples would have to adjust their already low birth rates towards 0. Thus, these economies could only survive through massive migration. And if that would be the only adjusting screw: one would have to prevent at the same time that these migrants adopt the same harmful ecological footprint as the one persisting in those developed nations.
Then two things would be more realistic: the population in the developed countries reduces the waste of resources in such a way that the economic power is maintained and at the same time prosperity is provided in the regions with high birth rates - thus reducing the birth rates through improved predicaments and perspectives, which however must also promote sustainable lifestyles in order not to create the same resource waste problem here.
But there is new hope
Today, the opportunities for impactful climate action are better than ever, because very powerful, globally integrated programs are now beginning to take effect. This is creating terrific opportunities:
The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), global taxonomy adjustments, and the EU Green Deal are some key levers in this regard:
THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development (un.org)
EU taxonomy for sustainable activities | European Commission (europa.eu)
A European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu)
Taxonomy influence and many other global programs fuel, reinforce, and complement each other. For example the EU taxonomy influence on US financial systems and investment in sustainability innovation and solutions:
The Ripple Effect of EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments in U.S. Financial Sector (harvard.edu)
Before long, companies will have great difficulty getting significant investment dollars if they cannot demonstrate sustainability innovation or at least sustainable operations. This, too, can become a big adjusting screw and innovation driver.
The political balance
Politicians must now organize robust majorities so that society can, on the one hand, continue to expand prosperity and well-being in a sustainable way, replacing environmentally harmful behavior and economic activity on the other.
The robustness and speed of this will determine whether we can overcome the climate crisis. And yes, many nations will not succeed in actively participating in this change. For political and economic reasons. That's why the major emitters urgently need to improve their collaboration.
But part of the whole truth is also that and why policymakers are completely out of their depth when it comes to the economic strength that will not only sustain social peace, but must also ensure investment in sustainability and environmental protection.
A few examples:
If the power supply cannot be secured, one should take a look at the really large consumers. If the German steel industry for example has to shut down its blast furnaces and processing plants or the German chemical industry has to shut down its crackers, the ripple effect would be gigantic. Every product that flows through our value chains contains chemicals from the downstream. Home based steel products are used in Germany's most important industries such as mechanical engineering, machinery and automotive.
The current reality:
If large steel manufacturers for example were to convert all of its current energy production and storage capacity to hydrogen, production could run for minutes.
If the energy price increases by another 20% or so for chemicals powerhouse BASF for its crackers, they would no longer be able to offer their products competitively. A conceivable logical step would be relocate to the equatorial region to use solar power to run the crackers and other industrial plants. With the corresponding effects on the entire value chains, for the entire economy. And then there would be zero money for environmental protection.
Against all this, e-mobility is a paper flag at a child's birthday party.
So, which options are actually left to us?
We have to be that honest, also because politicians are otherwise criticized with all the right in the world for not acting and deciding with foresight.
Conclusion: fighting the climate crisis will not only be very expensive and take a really long time, it will also be necessary that bridge technologies are accepted and expanded, and above all that everyone (really EVERYONE) gets together and works together.
This will be the most gigantic effort in the history of the world.
Either we bury our heads in the sand or we accept it and make the best of it. For example, through increased innovation, financed by diverting ample investment money into exactly these developments, rather than McDonald's stock.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides climate crisis mitigation advice and direction.
The 2022 Club of Rome report “Earth for All” gives further direction.
Here are a few simulations for inspiration:
En-ROADS (climateinteractive.org)
C-ROADS (climateinteractive.org)
And finally, may I ask the EU to reconsider the outsourcing of nature and climate destruction:
How the American South is paying the price for Europe's 'green' energy (cnn.com)
UPDATE-800-signatures_Scientist-Letter-on-EU-Forest-Biomass.pdf (pfpi.net) {Update 2021}
