Thread by @homemadeguitars

I invite my readers to read this article, with recommendations from some of the world's leading "climate thinkers."
In this thread I am going to specifically address their recommendations, via screenshot.
As a non-leading, totally unrespected, thinker. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

2. First, Peter Kalmus, @ClimateHuman. We follow each other. Here's all I could capture in one screenshot.

3. Taking just one clip from Peter...
Fossil Fuel must be capped and rationed. Fossil Fuel infrastructure must no longer be built.
Fossil fuels power 100% of all renewable energy infrastructure construction. If we choose to increase renewable construction we must increase fossil.

4. The primary source of solar panels worldwide is China. China is currently increasing their own fossil fuel capacity even though they are also installing their own renewables product as fast as possible.
Newly permitted and built coal plant in China.

5. The United States is currently planning to build the largest highway infrastructure project in at least 50 years if not world history. Both parties appear to be largely on board.
From whence does the energy for this project come?

6. Jennifer Francis says "We cannot wait."
Further she says we should "ramp up" renewables.

7. In the process of not waiting, while we "ramp up" these new technologies, can anyone give me a time frame for them to be able to power a culture and economy like we have today?
I've been asking for three years.
If we can't wait, when do we start?
🦗🦗
How long is the ramp?
🦗

8. Jennifer Francis goes on to tell us more things we must do in the future because we can't wait.
I particularly like "outfit cement plants with carbon capture technologies."
How long does it take to build and install them?
What powers their construction?
Do we know how? Today?

9. Michael Mann, whom I used to respect, is (wisely, given his great fame and respect) much more vague and abstract.
"No new fossil fuel infrastructure..."
Again - what, exactly, powers the demanded construction project?

10. As Mann rightly says, the clean energy transition is "under way". Right now.
Emissions are going up, simultaneously, like Jeff Bezos's flying phallus.
I think it would be appropriate for these "thinkers" to explain the energy budget, and source, for their planned construction

11. Mann says we "must choose between two paths."
One path leads to suffering and misery, the other to a "prosperous future for us, our children and grandchildren.

12. It is my firm belief that this binary choice is false, that neither path will work, and that the sole survivable future will be powered 100% by food, as eaten by humans and animals.
Again: explain the energy to power your path.
Don't just pooh-pooh the question. Answer it.

13. Tweet 8 is erroneous. My fault. No way to edit a thread.
I posted Holly Jean Buck's comments under Jennifer Francis's name. My mistake. I apologize.

14. Both Ms. Francis and Ms. Buck used the term "ramp up" and I got confused.
How, exactly, do "immediately" and "ramp up" mean the same thing? I confuse easily. Again, I apologize.

15. Holly Jean Buck.
I don't really dispute any of this, except it's all just handy catch phrases we've heard for the past decade. Eat less meat, while the primary job in rural America is fast food burger joints, so forth. Vague abstractions. Hunky dory.

16. I seriously don't know when these Climate Thinkers think "now" is, but their view of it is seriously different than mine.
She thinks "now" is consistent with "inventing new types of energy storage."
I bitch when they say "now" about stuff we haven't built. She says "now"...

17. About stuff we haven't even *invented.*
No, seriously. Now means... Oh, never mind. Nobody cares.
This is how you become a respectable thinker. "Act now!" "Invent stuff everybody is begging for!"
Now?
Never mind.
If somebody knew how to invent that he'd be richer than Bezos.

18. If we actually need to act now - and I think so, and all these respectable thinkers think so - and if "now" has *any meaning whatsoever* -
We need to slow down. It is the only means we know to use less fossil energy today.
Slow down speeds *and* processes.

18. A five mile per hour, strictly enforced, national speed limit reduction in all developed countries, would generate more emissions reductions in 2021 than all the recommendations in this entire article put together.

19. We would see more emissions reductions now, and next year, and in ten years, from a total halt of renewable energy infrastructure construction today than from all the renewables construction plans touted here.

20. With the possible exception of Peter, every Climate Thinker reported here assumes that we can solve climate change while building an entire new, global, energy infrastructure - GLOBAL - and continuing the operate the growth GDP economy forever.
It is patent malarkey.

21. Look at Holly Jean again. Besides the carbon capture machines in every cement plant, she wants to ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING.
Um, Holly - today (what we call "now") almost all the electricity on Earth is generated with fossil fuels.
Just, y'know, in case you hadn't heard.

22. What we need to do NOW is slow down. Reduce our speeds until we can no longer economically justify all this waste motion.
Waste energy, waste motion... And what's even sadder...

23. These thinkers don't even know that, now (there's that word again) the only power on Earth removing CO2 from the atmosphere is photosynthesis.
So they're good with bulldozing and paving it.
And - this dipshit thinks we can install "the world's largest solar farm"
Every day.

24. As long as these are the terms of the conversation it's totally hopeless. I'm sorry.
Slow down.
Quit wasting energy.
Quit wasting motion.
Tear up all the fucking concrete. I don't care if you plant it to ragweed, poison ivy, and Johnsongrass, it will be an improvement. Now.

PS. I'm going to go outside and gather up some sequestered atmospheric carbon to power my tractor.