The Tragedy of Ignoring Climate Solutions We Already Have

[Social Media]

 

In today’s world, we are faced with a grim choice: do we fail because we lack climate solutions, or because we have them and refuse to implement them? As the planet faces record-breaking hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and wildfires, the real question is whether our inaction is due to ignorance or deliberate neglect.

 

One of the most disheartening trends is the persistent belief among tech moguls that some miraculous, futuristic technology will solve our climate crisis, rendering today’s solutions obsolete. But waiting for an invention that may never come is a dangerous gamble we cannot afford.

 

At a recent artificial intelligence (AI) conference in Washington, DC, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt dismissed the possibility of meeting climate goals, saying, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it.” He suggested instead that we should go full steam ahead with AI, despite its massive energy consumption, which has already led some tech companies to abandon their climate goals. His justification? AI might, one day, solve the climate crisis. “I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it,” Schmidt declared.

 

But time is not on our side. A group of distinguished scientists recently issued a stark warning: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled.” Schmidt’s suggestion to rely on AI, a technology still struggling to prove its climate-friendliness, feels akin to suggesting we abandon lifeboats on a sinking ship in the hope that a superior, unimaginable lifeboat will eventually appear.

 

The truth is, we already have the lifeboats. We have the technology and solutions to address the climate crisis, and they are improving all the time—becoming more efficient, affordable, and adaptable. The only obstacle is that these solutions do not appeal to those in power, particularly the wealthy and influential. The narrative of needing unproven, futuristic technologies serves as a convenient excuse to delay action on the solutions we already have. As the climate movement has pointed out, “delay is the new denial.” And perhaps, in the age of tech obsession, we should add that proposing illusory solutions is also a form of denial.

 

Schmidt, whose wealth is estimated at around $23 billion, could be a driving force in organizing efforts to achieve our climate goals. Yet, his dismissive stance reflects the broader issue of how the ultra-rich often exacerbate the problem. Their wealth, lifestyles, and outsized influence leave a disproportionate environmental footprint: the richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. Schmidt’s rhetoric, which absolves him and others like him from immediate action, highlights a mindset that privileges personal and corporate gain over collective responsibility.

 

Scientists and engineers have long made it clear what needs to be done to mitigate the climate crisis. The most critical step is to rapidly phase out fossil fuel extraction and burning, alongside protecting forests and redesigning how we live, travel, and consume. Renewable energy systems—such as solar, wind, and water power—are not just viable but thriving.

 

California, where Schmidt resides, has managed to meet over 100% of its electricity needs on some days this year using renewable energy and has stored the surplus in large battery systems. While not everything in California runs on renewable energy, this model demonstrates how quickly such systems can be scaled up.

 

Yet, for many tech billionaires, these solutions seem too modest, even boring. They are not the flashy, revolutionary innovations they adore. In reality, transitioning to a renewable-powered world means consuming and producing less—a solution that doesn’t fit their vision of grand technological breakthroughs. Solar and wind technologies, despite their profound advancements, are seen as unglamorous. But their efficiency, affordability, and widespread implementation have skyrocketed in recent years. The shift we need is less about inventing new technologies and more about embracing and scaling the ones we already have.

 

It’s disheartening to ponder whether it would be worse to live in a world without climate solutions or to live in one where we have them and simply refuse to use them. What we do know is that the solutions exist—and they work. The real tragedy lies in our failure to deploy them at the necessary speed and scale.

 

As Rebecca Solnit eloquently writes, “We have the solutions.” Now, the challenge is finding the will to use them before it’s too late.

 

Based on an opinion from a Guardian author 2024-10-18

 

 

 

[Cryingdick]

"California, where Schmidt resides, has managed to meet over 100% of its electricity needs on some days this year using renewable energy and has stored the surplus in large battery systems. While not everything in California runs on renewable energy, this model demonstrates how quickly such systems can be scaled up."

 

 

Gets 100% on some days. Okay sure. I have installed solar systems and the batteries have always been the weakest link. Just like when you boy an electric chainsaw and after awhile it begins to have shorter run times. Then it dies. You end up with a bunch of tools you cant use and the cost of the battery is huge. 

 

For small tools like drills and nail guns it works, However for that lawn tractor that takes 8 batteries not so much. Also when you have a battery bank you must replace them all at one time. You can not just add one or take one out. So when those batteries die it is a problem if one cell goes out they all lag. 

 

When those huge battery banks have problems you will have to replace them all at once. I am sorry but 100% on some days isnt the answer.

 

 

[impulse]

Given the mass exodus of people who can no longer afford to live in California, I'm not sure that's a good example to hold up.

 

[JonnyF]

Give it a rest. Climate related deaths are at an all time low.

 

Technology should be used to help us adjust/utilize any changes, not to reverse them, because we can't. 

[James105]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster

 

Yawn.  They said the same in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and on and on.   Not surprisingly we are still here living ever longer lives.   Even the hobgoblin has become bored of this and jumped onto a different bandwagon.   

[impulse]

Up to $41 billion of the funds distributed to climate causes by the World Bank between 2017 and 2023 are unaccounted for due to poor accounting standards, according to an audit from Oxfam International published Thursday.

 

The enormous sum represents almost 40% of the climate funds the Bank disbursed during the seven year time period, with World Bank data failing to show the recipients and uses of the money, the Oxfam investigation found.

 

I wonder how much of that was spent writing the AI puff piece in the OP, to keep the grift going...

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/17/gaps-inconsistencies-41-billion-world-bank-climate-handouts-unaccounted-report-finds/

 

 

[Social Media]

Off topic personal link promotion removed

[Stargeezr]

Well IMO Electric Vehicles and flooding do not mix very well. Wind mill energy is not a good way to get electricity,

very high maintenance and high cost as well. Nuke energy is the best, hydro is good if you have a mountain near by.

Solar is great until the big hail storm hits and wrecks the solar panels. Go ask India and other countries that still use coal

how things are going. Oh and if the Earth is warming its self up as in global warming, well we puny humans cannot

do much to stop that from happening. My googled picture of CO2 for those who think that it is the only thing causing

the warming.