Originally Posted by
pba_target
Let me pose a thought experiment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that none of us (as individual ppruners) actually know what is going on with the climate.
Let's say there are 2 possibilities. On one side, we have "climate change is induced by human-caused emissions of various kinds". On the other side we have "climate change is going to happen anyway or not happen at all".
The choice you are asked to make is between those two. Now base your actions on the safest choice to make. Either "do something, just in case" or "do nothing because it won't make any difference".
Worst case, in doing something you get your electric from a wind turbine and some solar panels, pay maybe a little more for it in the short term, but hey, you're loving a comfy western lifestyle so hey.
Worst case in doing nothing, quite a lot worse.
Why would you choose to do nothing?
Yeah , except for the fact that that is the way to make really bad decisions.
Solar panels in Scotland ? Northern Germany ? A waste of money. I was in Germany in January and drove past a bunch of solar panels between Prague and Nuremberg covered in 15cm of snow. A joke.
There is a middle path. Pragmatism. Not zealotry.
Aircraft burn kerosene.
Ships burn diesel.
Regional trains are diesel electric.
Oh , and google search for the websites were you can monitor in real time the energy generation in Britain. Not within a bulls roar of renewable.
Setting non achievable goals are a political exercise and essentially useless.
The solutions will be technology driven and economically competitive. Otherwise we are wasting time and money.