I'm much more optimistic, though I do think it will get worse before it gets better. I think we'll end up with a few mass killer enviromental events before humans start to save themselves properly. It'll never be too late as Earth is always going to better than anywhere else for us.

Quick list of things hopeful in my feeds of the top of my head.

Renewable energy is the cheapest energy.
Agrivoltaics can increase yeilds while also providing power.
Home Solar & battery pay back time is coming down all the time.
Electric cars are the cheapest over their life time and the upfront costs are tumbling.
Electrification of more and more transport types is happening to save costs.
EVs are going V2H/V2G/V2X which means you get a large home (and office?) battery to take part in energy markets.
Second life EV batteries will eventury be a source of larger, cheaper, home batteries.
Just the other day another methane solution : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/22/bacteria-that-eats-methane-could-slow-global-heating-study-finds
Fusion looks closer than 50 years out now.
RightToRepair + OpenSource is slowly spreading and will reduce life time costs and reduce e-waste. Regulators are waking up too.
Vertical farming is developing and will end up cheaper.
Lab meat or precision fermentation is a path to animal free animal protein at lower costs.
5 minute cities as an idea is spreading.
Covid has normalized WFH
Green spaces in cities to cool them and improve mental health is increasingly being talked about and pushed in some forward thinking cities.
Peak population is constantly revised down and sooner. Once population starts to fall, it's not set to stop for a long time.

There is a lot of movement. It's all about aligning economics with fighting climate change. Which is natural as using less to do the same thing is better for both.

One thing that is a very good sign is oil companies are scared. They are spending a lot of money pumping out FUD. Doom peddling to slow climate action, but economics is against them. Even without climate damage being costed in. Which governments will do when oil is less powerful.

Fight the doom!

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some of the things you listed are indeed good, but we're not going to avert climate catastrophe unless we reject the idea that we can only do good things if they're less expensive than the bad thing alternative.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

I think it's the way to ease the masses in. You also missing that the other end is to make the bad stuff expensive. Bring environmental cost on to the balance sheet. Criminalize and enforce those laws, environmental crimes. Carrot and stick.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's also a lot of propaganda paid by fossil fuel lobbyists (and some nuclear lobbyists still going for the perceived easy target of renewables, as rediculous as it is...) with the goal to disrupt the energy transition.

And the majority here actually believes they are anti-fossil fuels while they actually parrot their propaganda (for example the "Germany stopped nuclear power to burn more coal"-fairy tale you can read a hundred times by now here - only invented for the talking point of coal being needed, when Germany is actually at a historic low in use) and thus constantly running (objectively wrong) talking points against renewable power.

On one hand I love the obvious panic of fossil fuel lobbyists getting more desperate and rediculous in their massaging by the day. On the other hand, they already brain-washed a massive amount of people that I fear are really lost and will fight tooth and nails against a reasonable green transition to pursue their fantasies of "sane" nuclear build-up (that isn't sane because nobody is actually building enough capoacities to make sense mathematically), without that "non-working" storage (that nuclear power actually needs to be economically viable) and "expensive" renewables (same, same...).

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You get it. But at the end of the day, the fossil fuel companies will lose because of economics. Renewable energy and electrification is cheaper and better and planet saving. There will be economic feedback loops kicking in as less fuel is used, taking up the price.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But "in the end" isn't fast enough for my taste... or for the taste of people losing their homes or base of life to floods, draughts, forest fires and so on.

And it won't even get better but just worse even if we stopped co2 emission completely today. We would have need that feedback loop a decade ago. Instead the same lobbyists now sabotaging it got a lot of renewables killed the moment they were too cheap to compete.

If you draw a curve of deployed solar and wind power, the last decade is a hole that basically threw us back more than the missed time even.

And even if renewables take over for economicla reasons now, they will just change tactic and instead sabotage storage and infrastructure to keep fossil fuels relevant.

Germany had a very coal heavy power prodcution originally and massively build up renewables... and the lobbyists were already ahead... they blocked grid extensions to create pockets depending on coal no matter how much cheap green electricity is available. They blocked grid extensions to make diversification less effective. They -also for that reason- pushed antiwind sentiments in one part of the country and anti-solar in another. They made storage commercially unviable by massive double taxation (once as an end consumer while loading, then as a producer while unloading).

And they did all that basically without anyone taking much notice because they also -and much more visible- blocked wind and solar power in general (ffs... they killed a 100k people industry and sold it off to China just because solar was getting too cheap).

Yes, renewables are extremely cheap. So cheap in fact that people fight for their chance to build solar and wind in designated areas instead of wanting subsidies like for other power production. But if we don't take a very close and constant look, we will be surprised in a decade how all those renewables did not actually help reduce co2 much as the 10-year-infrastructure plans for storage and grid are suddenly about lagging 9 years behind. Just look at such basic projects like the north-south grid connection in Germany. The 10-year plan to build SüdLink is scheduled to be done in ~6 years now... after 12 years. 100% sponsored by conservative local politicians and conservative nimbys cosplaying as environmentalists.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Never give up hope. That's what fossil fuels companies want.

In 2005 me and my now wife watched "Who Killed the electric car" and it felt hopeless. Now we both drive EVs and you see more and more of them on the road. Home solar used to be a pipe dream, but now I know more people with it and hope to set it up myself. My electricity provider claims 100% renewables. We plan to remove gas use from the house.

Germany will hurt itself by not looking forwards, and as that becomes more and apparent, it will be harder to maintain. Fossil fuel money will start to reduce and with that, it's corruption of politics and information. At some point, I hope some jail time is handed out to those who knowing slowly climate against for money. Now, climate action and money are more and more lined up. Always have been long term, but now short term too. Aligned on energy and thus everything down stream of energy. Which a lot of stuff!

Australia's Teals movement shows common sense can win out.