Leaders on Purpose’s Post

The U.S. presidential race is becoming more intense, partly due to the discussion about climate change. There is a stark contrast in approaches: One side takes aggressive action to mitigate the impact, while the other either downplays the issue or dismisses it entirely. It's crucial to understand that climate change is an urgent issue with tangible environmental effects. Dismissing this phenomenon may find a warm reception in certain circles. Still, it could curtail the lifespan of promising technologies, such as long-term battery storage and grid modernization, which support two-way communications and more green energy.

Withdrawing from Paris would put us in the fine company of Yemen, Libya and Iran, the only three nations on earth that have not signed the Paris climate treaty.   Five eminent people around climate provide comment here on the LNP's dissapointing proposal to exit the Paris agreement and prop up coal into the 2040's and beyond. Our 43% target is already inadequate, but at least it provides policy certainty for business. At least labor’s target was close to double that of the coalition. If you want to go somewhere you need a map. However, the climate Council calculated in their “Aim high, Go fast” report of 2021 that Australia required a 74% reduction in emissions by 2030 to meet our commitment to 1.5 degrees. https://lnkd.in/gzYkC-5 With the earths remining 1.5degree carbon budget sitting now at only 250Gt, even 74% in inadequately small. However, I’m struggling to understand what the LNP’s election strategy is here. It reflects the disinformation noise making campaign along the lines of the voice, "If you don’t know" approach. Nuclear power plants, renewables destroying the economy, we will pull out of Paris and no policy details unless you elect me?? Really? It doesn’t make political sense for their stated desire to win back the blue-ribbon seats lost to the Teal candidates in the last election. Climate 200’s executive director, Byron Fay said. “Last weekend, we saw a 20-fold bump in donations and the pace hasn’t let up” It doesn’t make financial sense. Switching to renewables will not destroy the economy. Particularly when compared to the cost of nuclear power. Remembering that the LNP are the economic masters that lumbered us with one of the most irresponsible financial decisions ever to spend $380 billion on nuclear submarines, and in nine short years they left with Australia with nearly a Trillion dollars in debt, from a starting point of about $100M. And yet there is a huge pipeline of clean investment on the way that they would be prepared to throw away. Renew economy reported in 2022 of a pipeline of $850billion in clean energy projects. https://lnkd.in/g-f9pQXZ The only thing I can see is that it is political noise to distract with a non-policy. Perhaps it is because sowing doubt and confusion is far easier than actually proving anything or having a concrete policy. #Climatechange #auspol https://lnkd.in/gvXCQQVK

Here is a commentary by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation. It is entitled: Biden’s Hypocrisy on Climate Change Painfully Obvious. Yes just this morning I noticed an article on 1440, where the owner for a parrot was trying to give away a parrot who had been taught to cuss like a sailor.....so here we have a puppet that mimics what he is told, as it seems. The old..."repeat after me." Yes climate may be changing, not unusual, has been for eons. Man made? Carbon? However, the facts, data and science seemed skewed to an agenda. "Follow the "science" they say.....yet they can't balance a budget, can't secure and border, and the litany of blunders just keeps on coming along with the chaos. Pay attention, very close attention......Perhaps the real threat is them.....so on to it..... ...."President Joe Biden repeatedly has called climate change an “existential threat,” worse than nuclear weapons. Yet, Biden’s green energy mandates result in a greater U.S. demand for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric batteries from China, made by coal-fired power plants, increasing the emissions Biden criticizes at home. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that in the absence of reductions in carbon emissions, temperatures will rise by about 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century....." READ ON, PRAY ON....STAND UNITED for FREEDOM, RIGHTS...IN GOD WE TRUST!!...PROUDY, STRONGLY!!....all over the WORLD>>>!!

These were intense and inspiring days at #COP28 with the Climate Interactive team. Many encouraging conversations with respectable and renown climate scientists, government representatives, corporate sustainability managers, NGOs, En-ROADS Ambassadors, and friends, etc. I am especially thrilled about the feedback from these discussions on #EnROADS, the climate simulation simulator, co-developed by Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative. En-ROADS brings climate science to high-level decision-makers in an easy and accessible way, helping them understand that some climate solutions are low-leverage (often overrated in the negotiations) and some are high-leverage (often underrated in the negotiations) and the dynamics behind the discussions at #COP28 about an orderly fossil fuel phase-out (critical), the tripling of renewables (necessary), doubling of energy efficiency (critical), or increase of nuclear (too late), and their #climateimpacts and other impacts, such as #globalhealth, #inequalities, #biodiversity, etc. For example, Climate Interactive's Executive Director Andrew Jones, tests the quote by COP28 President whether "there is no science indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5 °C" with En-ROADS in this post: https://lnkd.in/eDwEUHre "Go get 'em" to tackle the #climatecrisis, CI team in Week 2! And everybody on the ground successful final negotiations to stop the #climatecrisis.

Which nuclear fission or fusion?

#bookreview Today October 24, I celebrate the International Day of Climate Action by reviewing a 2021 book by Bill Gates "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster" . At the beginining of the book it is stating the fact that 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere every year, and this actually causes #climatechange. The goal should be zero. To overcome climate change, Bill Gates offers new technologies, scientific breakthroughs and innovations. On this path, as the author says, it is necessary to concentrate the perservence and scientific potential of the whole world to implement the clean energy production methods we already have and to invent new ones. One of the sources of greenhouse gases is fossil fuel. And throughout the book it becomes clear that the prices for it are very low. The fact that it is so cheap makes it difficult to rebuild the current global energy system. As a rule, all alternatives are more expensive and the amount that has to be paid additionally is called "green premium". I think this applies to all environmental things. We get electricity from fossil fuels that contain carbon. Wind power plants are one of the options for the production of carbon-free electricity. Only China, Russia, and several other countries directly invest in advanced nuclear developments and have an established mechanism for such activities. I would like to comment that it is terrible that one of them want to use nuclear developments not for the purpose of obtaining a carbon-free energy source, but for weapons capable of destroying half the world! In general, I liked the fact that the topic of climate is revealed and explained with the help of numerous mathematical calculations. And also I like such an approach that the fight against climate change is not about prohibitions and giving up something, but about finding solutions and constructive dialogue. It was a very informative book for me, in which Bill Gates explains the subject of climate change well and expands everything on the shelves.

Forget the clickbait-y headline, it’s much, much less useful than the article itself. This is the paragraph that concerns me, as it should all of us: “Chu’s scientific curiosity sits alongside a political pessimism. No country will reach net zero by 2050 “aside from Norway, Iceland, a few countries like that . . . It’s going to take much longer”. The international target of “1.5C is gone, so is 2C. I think we’ll probably go over 3C”. Does Chu worry the public will conclude it is too late to act? “If you have children and they go a little astray, is that your attitude? It’s too late?!” He points out that 3C of warming could become 4C, an even worse prospect, unless we act.”” This comes from a Nobel-prize winning physicist, a former energy secretary under Obama, a supporter of nuclear energy, and adviser to a number of large corporates. We have no alternative but to find ways and means to slow down global warming. Otherwise our children and grandchildren shall not forgive us (as Dr. Chu is fond of reminding politicians and business people). #climatechange #globalwarming #energytransition #renewableenergy

As COP28 concludes, it feels like déjà vu, reminiscent of the SDG2030 vision and other sterile schemes. References to phasing out fossil fuels, even though they cannot be phased out overnight without concrete commitments or pledges, leave much to be desired. The 'commitments' of $3.5+$9.0 billion, etc., are a joke in the face of a climate catastrophe costing trillions in damage already. Perhaps it's time to consider a swift transition back to nuclear energy as we grapple with the challenge of fossil fuel phase-out. Once again, short-term economic considerations are likely to prevail over environmental concerns and technological possibilities. We're still in the era of window dressing and greenwashing, far from a paradigm shift for the environment. 🌍🤔 #COP28 #ClimateAction #NuclearEnergy"

Navigating the Crossroads: Assessing Progress and Urgency at #COP28 As COP28 approaches its midpoint, UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell urges world leaders to transcend mere commitments and catalyze tangible advancements in climate financing. Despite pledges towards a loss and damage fund, nuclear energy scaling, and emission reduction, Stiell emphasizes the imperative for immediate, impactful action. We'd love to hear your thoughts - In the context of COP28 UAE, how can the international community strike a balance between ambition, pragmatism, and the urgency required to avert irreversible environmental damages? https://lnkd.in/gh7U_E73

The Bulletin of Nuclear Scientists COP28 The stark choice facing climate conference: A livable climate or more oil and gas? If the COP process is to be relevant, then at the very least it needs to fundamentally change the way it works. Key changes would focus on the consensus rule that gives such extraordinary powers to petrostates, and on limits of access for the fossil fuel lobbying industry at the COPs. A proposal by the Club of Rome—endorsed by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former Ireland President Mary Robinson, among other prominent figures—emphasizes both the need for capacity to respond to our current emergency situation and to respect the goal of Paris of 1.5 degrees Celsius by holding countries to account for financing the transition. The proposal also supports a science-based approach in the COP process, with more regular updates about new developments and smaller, more frequent meetings to ensure governments are not the only voices heard during official discussions. If the current COP could move in this direction, there may be hope for it. But if political bluster fueled by addictions to oil and gas hold sway, the culture of failure will persist, with severe consequences for humanity’s future.