Obviously the emissions are the controllable. Blaming this on El Niño [...]
Nobody is actually blaming anything on El Niño. El Niño simply covered up how bad it was already for some time.
Which also means those emissions are indeed not controllable. Because they have happened years ago and we still can't do time travel. That's the whole actual point of talking about El Niño here.
Congratulations. You are part of the problem.
Actual statistics and basically every poll show that the vast majority of people agrees and wants to do much more to address climate change on a personal and government level. And just like you most of them are suffering from propaganda-induced brain rot and believe that they are totally alone with that opinion so it unfortunately has no sense to even try. So they don't.
Do I condemn Hamas’ atrocities?
I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the perpetrator or the victim [...], at the same time, I celebrate anyone who risks their life to TEAR DOWN THE WALL.
[...]
Are Israelis not justified to fear that Hamas wants to exterminate them?
Of course they are! Jews have suffered a Holocaust that was preceded with pogroms and a deep-seated antisemitism permeating Europe and the Americas for centuries.
[...]
So, let’s be clear: If Jews were under attack, anywhere in the world, I would be the first to canvass for a Jewish Congress in which to register our solidarity.
(from the speech published later, when he was not allowed to talk there...)
So in short:
What an impressive example of a voice of reason for Palestina... totally not an antisemitic, lying populist cheering for Hamas' attacks while at the same time denying any Jew got attacked. What a f****ng 🤡.
That's an interesting concept but the base assuptions are fundamentally wrong, because this is not how the electricity market or the grid work.
There is no classical supply and demand here. There has to always be the amount produced as is used up. More supply than demand and the grid breaks down, more demand than supply and the same happens.
When you add cheaper renewable electricity to an existing system, there is no effect of higher supply reducing the price thus creating more demand like in a classical market. The opposite is true. The base price is usually linked to the most expensive producer via some merit order system (because there must always be enough capacity to fullfill the demand in real time), so the price stays the same. And on top of the produced electricity we now also need to pay some producers to stop production. That cost is also added via some grid fee. So burning fossil fuels is indeed the worst thing to make money here. Instead you can get a lot of money with producing renewable energy on one hand (as you get a high prize for cheap production), or by not producing fossil fuel energy (basically getting paid for not shutting down you power plant in case it's needed while not actually burning fuels most of the time).
Which in the end means you are indeed replacing fossil fuels with renewables. Prices will only drop once you build so much renewables and short term storage to completely eliminate the need for fossil fuel power plants to be kept for the rare moment you need them. So there is no effect of lower prices artificially creating higher demand.
Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point. You are an idiot thinking this is a team sport, "your" side is right and everybody not sharing your exact opinion is wrong and the enemy.
And because everyone is the same on that "other side" I somehow become a zionist bombing civilians in your alternative world view, although I could impossibly qualify for that definition by any degree.
And also because everything on your side needs to be righteous you twist reality to fit your view. I explicitly asked how to effectively separate Palestinian civilians in Gaza from their de facto Hamas governmemnt. Yet somehow in your brain that question translated to the exact opposite of what I actually said: That somehow every civilan in Gaza is part of Hamas.
Seriously... how fucked up is your delusion that things you read instantly transform to mean something completely different, just so they fit the imaginary point you are trying to make?
So... Getting better while China doesn't creates the effect of reducing emmissions by... let's say 40%.
The effect of crying about China as an excuse to not do anything yourself however is 0!
Which on will you chose?
It's also the leader in building up renewables instead while everyone else sits lazily on their ass crying "why should we do anything when China exists?"
How about we do better than China first and then cry about them, instead of using them as an excuse to fail even harder than them?
Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don't produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.
So you could in fact throw money at the problem... And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren't even economically viable in comparison.
Nope... Spreading that bullshit as a fact is part of the problem.
The economy isn't the problem. We can adapt in a lot of ways that helps the climate while also having working economies.
The actual problem is that the people with money want exactly the kind of economy that makes them money for decades. So they will block any changes to keep everything as it is.
Hamas plans a genocide of Jews on one hand -without limited success so far, but not for a lack of trying- and actively helps with worsening the situation in Gaza on the other because they can use deaths there for their propaganda. Israel isn't shy about killing as many Palestinians as possible either, because not reacting to Hamas terror isn't an option, but any reaction will produce a negative reaction and tons of propaganda anyway. So why not go all in?
So which side are you talking about? The one commiting genocide or the genocidal one? No, Palestinian civilians are sadly not a valid side you can chose as they are de facto governed by Hamas in Gaza... unless you have a plan to separate one from the other somehow. Please then go on and tell the plan to world leaders unsuccessfully looking for such a solution for many, many years now.
Or in short: Pretending there are easy sides, with one being right and one wrong, is not a solution but indeed part of the problem.
Weil dann müßten sie ja etwas umstellen und nicht wie sonst auch immer weitermachen.
Wein unter Photovoltaik, Mais rein für die Energieerzeugung abschaffen, und dafür dann sinnvollere Dinge anbauen wäre halt möglich und würde wahrscheinlich bessere Gesamtergebnisse einbringen. Aber das ist mit der Bauen-Ideologie oft nunmal nicht zu vereinbaren.
Oder das ist schon wieder so eine deutsche Besonderheit, dass Weinanbau unter Photovoltik in Frankreich funktioniert aber nicht in Deutschland. So wie Wärmepumpen in Skandinavien funktionieren aber es in Detuschland dafür zu kalt ist...
Nope, it needs governmental regulations.
Financing-wise renewable energy has long surpassed fossil fuels. It's not capitalists in general blocking the change as they would make a lot of money. This is very specifically about a small amount of individuals making their money in fossil fuels and spending a lot on lobbying to slow the transition down as they try to squeeze as much out of their business model as possible before it runs against a wall they can already see (but try to hide from the consumer).
The same is true in other sectors, for example in traffic where totally insane bullshit gets pushed (hyper-loops, air taxis etc.) as magical alternatives to actually working public transport. That's also not some business that will ever make money. It's a diversion by people who want to keep making money in a very specific field (CE cars) before that whole sector also dies off. Also the scaling effect in EV production as well as improvements and development still have a massive potential with much money to be made by the people investing into a still developing and growing market. Unlike the dying market of combustion engines that competes on miniscule optimisations of the status quo still possible. Yet the very same companies knowing that combustion engines are dead and not even working on developing a next line but instead focusing on electric drives, still do marketing like the opposite would be true so they can sell that trash with no future perspective as long as possible.
There is quiet a lot to say against capitalism, but at the moment we don't have a capitalism problem (at least not where climate action is involved) but one of corruption that helps a few people to keep failing businesses alive a bit longer at the expense of everyone including capitalists in the future businesses that will replace them.