I'm an old man. I've lived through "by 1980," "by 1990," "by 2000," "by 2010," "by 2020," and now it's "by 2050"' for the outbreak of the "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here, and frankly, won't come.
This "by XXXX" shit is MBA talk which translates, "I'm not going to do a fucking thing, except make promises on behalf of today's newborns, about whom I actually don't give a shit, about what they will be required to do after I'm dead."
The ethics of these appalling claims should be clear to anyone who has ethics. If one doesn't have ethics, well, that's another matter.
Despite all of this horseshit, "by 2026," which is now, the planet is in flames, ecosystems are collapsing, extreme weather events are increasing and the seas are rising. About 7 million people will die this year from dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution," while people put their heads up worrying about so called "nuclear waste" which has a spectacular record of not killing anyone,
I think I made it very, very, very, very clear in my post producing the IEA document the distinction between data and soothsaying.
Despite this, I find that the antinukes who don't give a rat's ass about fossil fuels, always appeal to soothsaying.
In the ten minutes it took to write this post, given a rate of around 7 million people per year, about 130 people died from the effect of fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution."
I find the inattention to this reality - which has consistently been displayed here by antinukes for as long as I've been here, almost always accompanied by soothsaying about "by XXXX" (insert year XXXX, always 20 or 30 years off) - again, a reflection of moral indifference to issues in energy and the environment as they relate to decency, but if nothing else, it's consistent.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read