Back in the 1950s when I was still yet to be a teenager, I would disobediently keep my bedroom light on to read into the night: one night I hadn’t noticed that a small window was still open.
Excellent Walt. Really like it. I could say alot but I'll restrict myself to sharing this little snippet to be considered. Cheers
Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, at COP29.
BAKU, Nov 16 2024 (IPS) – A sudden flurry of activity as Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, emerges from an interview room in the COP29 media centre. It’s early days of the conference and there is energy and excitement at the venue in Baku.
Inter Press Service: Sadhguru, climate change has been a known crisis for over four decades. Yet despite numerous conferences and terms like loss and mitigation and climate finance, we’re still facing rising temperatures, floods, and droughts. Why are we not succeeding? Are we missing the right approach?
Sadhguru: “Succeeding in what, exactly? The problem is that there’s no clear, actionable goal. We talk about economic development, which many nations pursue without pausing to consider its impact on the planet. At the same time, those who have already achieved a certain quality of life tell others not to follow the same path. It’s a paradox. We tell people to give up hydrocarbons—coal, oil—yet offer no viable alternatives. If we shut off hydrocarbons today, this very conference wouldn’t last ten minutes!
We’re all focused on what to give up but lack sustainable, scalable alternatives. Solar, wind, and similar sources only cover a tiny fraction of our energy needs—less than 3 percent. For real change, we need technology that provides clean, non-polluting energy, but we’re far from that. Nuclear energy is a powerful option, yet there’s too much activism and fear surrounding it. Meanwhile, electric cars, often touted as solutions, don’t really address ecological well-being; they just reduce urban air pollution.”
IPS: And what about faith? Can it play a role in addressing the climate crisis?
Sadhguru:
Let’s not focus on faith in the context of climate change. It’s our responsibility to act. When things go wrong due to human error, people often call it fate or God’s will. But this crisis is of our making. And the crisis we talk about isn’t the planet’s—it’s a crisis for human survival.
Life on Earth relies on delicate interconnections, from insects to microbes. If these were wiped out, life on the planet would soon collapse. Ironically, if humans disappeared, the planet would thrive.
This is the perspective we need: climate change threatens our existence, not the Earth’s.
Sadguru’s main Save Soil + Climate Change action website
52% Of agricultural soils are already degraded
Save Soil is a global movement to address the soil crisis by uniting people across the globe to stand up for soil health, and support leaders of all nations in actioning policies toward increasing organic matter in agricultural soil.
The Solution
Bring back at least 3-6% organic matter in the soil–By bringing the land under shade from vegetation & enriching the soil through plant litter and animal waste.
One does not need to be a scientist to understand what needs to be done to address the causes of climate change and global warming. The solutions are often rooted in common sense and basic principles of sustainability: reducing dependency on fossil fuels, transitioning to cleaner energy sources, protecting natural ecosystems, and curbing wasteful consumption.
As Sadhguru insightfully points out, the challenge lies in offering practical, scalable alternatives rather than focusing solely on what must be given up. While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise.
Gandalf: Great post. Well done. This part, as you might guess given my other comments, especially resonates with me:
=== Start quote
"the challenge lies in offering practical, scalable alternatives rather than focusing solely on what must be given up. While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise."
=== End quote
We're dealing with 7.8 billion people, all degrading the environment 24x365, all in pursuit of their survival and improving their std of living.
This is a powerful, constant, ubiquitous motivation-set, probably the biggest non-geological or water-cycle force on the planet. It's what's driving the Anthropocene.
Can we harness that force? It's probably the only force available of sufficient scale to address the core problems.
Recall: most of those 7.8 billion don't have the competency, time, and resources to invent and/or apply existing techs / tools / products which both meet their needs - real or perceived - and fix the planet.
That leaves the relative few, who do have the time, intent, and resources to make it possible for the rest to get their part done.
Let's call that relative few the "vanguard".
Hence: one key role of that vanguard is to get really good at - build the tools necessary - to get enough situational awareness, enough collaboration, enough capacity as to justify a start-point beach-head for strategy implementation.
As my friend said, we're really not good at that right now, and if more than a few are going to survive, our collective ability to communicate, to focus, to prioritize, to adapt and apply has to be vastly increased.
So we need a new strategy, and the tools to implement that strategy, and enough early-adopter (ready-willing and ables) to get the ball rolling.
Strategy, tools, and a quorum.
And that's why Walt's work here is so important. He's putting a road-map on the table, and asking for input, and he's talking to the ready-willing-and-ables.
Getting sufficient consensus on the situation and the remedies will take a lot of dialog, and a lot of time, and may never achieve sufficient coherence as to become actionable.
There may be other ways to get to that result. It may be that a cafeteria of solutions, actionable at the individual level - at a time and pace that works for each individual - will get more done.
This is why I prefer the "products" approach. Products like insulation, hydrogen production plants, and the myriad applications of hydrogen as fuel and industrial input material or even bioceramics that can be cast (using molds) into structural and building cladding elements. Consider distributed, almost-free educational materials, or household-scale food production systems.
Those products will all move the needle toward the goal-set you offer in the Manifesto.
These products can be selected and implemented on an individual basis ... these product-oriented approaches are sufficiently focused as to be achievable, don't require a consensus or top-down support.
These well-designed products offer immediate benefits - in addition to the society-wide environmental benefits - that provide the economic impetus and rationale to get started.
Getting started is the key. Each person's success would likely be made known to a social network, and then the network effect takes over, doing the hard work of awareness-building almost automatically.
This product-oriented, bottom-up, individually-driven approach - coupled with the over-arching architecture set out in the Manifesto, can get the job done.
I recommend supplementing the Manifesto with an ever-growing, well-discussed cafeteria of products - identified and contributed by all of us - that enables individuals and small communities to take concrete steps toward implementing the Manifesto.
I forwarded your post to a friend, asking for his comments. He replied, and I will post his reply below, for everyone's benefit.
====
I think walt has done a yeoman's effort on many difficult topics. I'd like to focus on the goals:
1. An adequate standard of living for all.
2. World peace.
3. Minimal impact on the environment.
I would recommend Walt ask 20 friends over to the house one night and get them to all agree on definitions of these concepts:
- adequate
- standard of living
- world
- peace
- minimal
- impact
- environment
Give the group 3 hours to reach agreement on these 7 concepts. after all, if people cannot agree on the goals, how can they possibly agree and implement ways to reach the goals? If he succeeds, let each participant repeat the process with 20 new people, and so on.
8 billion people are a tough nut to crack :)
The scale of the problem coupled with the scale of the people needed to solve it exceeds our known problem solving (or implementation) techniques. So i think we will muddle through, trying different solutions at different scales, and, in the end, nature will have her way. Its what we have always done because its really all we can do :)
Human groups only unite at the precipice. Having studied many of these topics for at least 20 years, I can appreciate the desire to avoid the precipice, to solve the 'problem' before its 'too late'. here nature can guide us: she (Nature) is not top down, she is bottom up.
What saves a species in an extinction event is the small little subset that survives, the ones who are 'just variant enough' to escape the full force of the bad conditions.
Humans have been through at least one bottleneck, where we got down to about 1000. They didn't solve the big problem; they found a niche where the conditions were survivable (with appropriate adaptation). Without them, we wouldn't be here.
Hey, man, 20 to the 3rd power is 8000. Maybe we should try for that :) Perhaps we don't need one solution; we need a million solutions (8b/8k).
If we build a million geoships* per year, all over the world, it won't save the planet - but it might save humanity. If 8000 people know how to make a food forest, given the right conditions, we might just make it through.
20 years ago, these problems would keep me up at night. now i sleep like a baby :)
=======
* A "geoship" is a housing structure made from bioceramic. If you're not familiar with the concept, visit this website: www.geoship.is/
The human race is at war, both with itself, and the environment. I think it unlikely that it has the sense to avoid either or both catastrophes. This manifesto can be developed and produced with the assistance and agreement of a legion of thinking people: ultimately, perhaps it will be renamed “A Survivors’ Handbook”."
First, I salute the care and clarity you put into your writing.
Second, I disagree with many aspects! Briefly, without long explanation:
- overly materalist perspective
- to solve human race being 'at war' with self an environment, more advanced civilizations are required, not so much in terms of technology (your emphasis) but morals, spirituality, wisdom.
- if the latter were done, all other problems would be resolved satisfactorily; however whilst an overly materialistic paradigm persists, as it does in all major civilizations these days, they will not be fixed
- the carbon thesis is rubbish
- the climate change notion is the single biggest obstacle to people wrapping their heads around the issue you rightly started your piece off with, the species extinction (and general environmental degradation).
- we need to develop better ways of managing human life, urban and rural, in accord with Nature not against. This is primarily a cultural, not technological, issue. The belief that we can first view and then remedy all these problems through a technological/scientific lens is the natural result of over-reliance on reductionist materialism which is the worst legacy of this Modernist Age which started about two hundred and fifty years or so ago and is now infecting the whole planet in some sort of world wide civilizational miscagenation.
We need more common sense and wisdom based on perennial philosophical and spiritual skeins found in all great civilizations but which have been taking the back seat since the Industrial Revolution fuelled by parasitic Money Powers and mercantilism. Some nations are doing better than others in this regard but all these days are far too materialistic and therefore lack the ability to course correct based on sound moral principles which have been obfuscated in the 'modernization' ethos.
3) Climate change is not CAUSED by rising CO2 content, it is merely indicated by it. The CO2 content of the atmosphere FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not the other way around. We are actually near an all-time low now.
Burning fuel does not change the climate. The whole madness surrounding “climate protection” and “net zero” is once again pseudo-scientific hype with a purely power-political motivation, the aim of which is to be able to tax all expressions of human life and subject them to digital control. Net Zero is a semi-religious death cult and a globalist Ponzi scheme, but not a science. My job exposes me to this madness on a daily basis.
That does not mean we should continue to "drill baby drill" and "burn baby burn" but we should slow it down for entirely different reasons, and put our focus entirely elsewhere but on CO2. The climate will do what it does, we need to prepare for the change, not foolishly try to stop it.
Solar and wind energy have severe ecological and health side effects that are hardly realised by most people. Conventional nuclear plants are the most toxic and dangerous invention of mankind and need to be stopped a.s.a.p. Alternatives are available for decades but still being suppressed by the powers-that-be, because the are decentralised in nature and cannot be subjected to central control. Their use would mean energy autonomy on a household and community level. The powers-that-be dread nothing as much as our autonomy and thus, their loss of control.
You have the facts dead wrong in some aspects, which leads to false conclusions. I will only address one area that touches my profession, and that is the "myths of fossil fuels”.
1) We are NOT approaching “peak oil” and we never were. There is no such thing as “peak oil”, that is a propaganda myth invented by the Club of Rome to exert political pressure. The industry finds new reservoirs every week because we know better where to look. And the existing reservoirs, which were thought to be depleted, are slowly but steadily replenishing themselves.
2) Oil and gas are NOT “fossil”, nor is coal. The only “fossil” fuel is lignite, which is actually made from decomposed forests. Oil and natural gas are NOT former wood. The origin of these substances lies in the depths of the earth. In the depths there is bacterial life that emits methane. This gas rises to the surface, combines into larger molecules and continues to rise until it encounters impermeable rock and thus resistance, at which point it accumulates. But most of it just keeps rising to the surface and into the atmosphere, totally natural and totally inevitable. According to the conventional narrative, methane causes multiple times the "greenhouse effect" of CO2. Anything we humans add by burning fuel is a tiny fraction of the natural occurence of the so-called "greenhouse gases".
Now the oil industry know better where to look: in the past, following the "fossil" error we were exploring maily in areas where it was believed that aeons ago there were giant forests. Now, we have dropped that false belief and we are instead looking for impermeably dome-shaped rock formations, and that means exploration is far more successful.
I urge everyone with a functioning brain to read the book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by the eminent and superb scientist Thomas Gold. It is a true eye-opener.
3) Climate change is not CAUSED by rising CO2 content, it is merely indicated by it. The CO2 content of the atmosphere FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not the other way around. We are actually near an all-time low now.
Burning fuel does not change the climate. The whole madness surrounding “climate protection” and “net zero” is once again pseudo-scientific hype with a purely power-political motivation, the aim of which is to be able to tax all expressions of human life and subject them to digital control. Net Zero is a semi-religious death cult and a globalist Ponzi scheme, but not a science. My job exposes me to this madness on a daily basis.
That does not mean we should continue to "drill baby drill" and "burn baby burn" but we should slow it down for entirely different reasons, and put our focus entirely elsewhere but on CO2. The climate will do what it does, we need to prepare for the change, not foolishly try to stop it.
Solar and wind energy have severe ecological and health side effects that are hardly realised by most people. Conventional nuclear plants are the most toxic and dangerous invention of mankind and need to be stopped a.s.a.p. Alternatives are available for decades but still being suppressed by the powers-that-be, because the are decentralised in nature and cannot be subjected to central control. Their use would mean energy autonomy on a household and community level. The powers-that-be dread nothing as much as our autonomy and thus, their loss of control.
I think I need to explain, before this gets out of hand, that the Gingko is Redlisted because very few undomesticated examples remain in the wild, and these entirely perhaps in Southeast China. The examples you quote are the equivalent of near extinct animals mainly surviving in zoos.
The ginkgo leaf is the Symbol of Tokyo City, with thousands of trees everywhere. Kyoto has ginkgo trees too, but they are in shrines all over Japan. And now is the season for the yellow leaves.
Excellent Walt. Really like it. I could say alot but I'll restrict myself to sharing this little snippet to be considered. Cheers
Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, at COP29.
BAKU, Nov 16 2024 (IPS) – A sudden flurry of activity as Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, emerges from an interview room in the COP29 media centre. It’s early days of the conference and there is energy and excitement at the venue in Baku.
Inter Press Service: Sadhguru, climate change has been a known crisis for over four decades. Yet despite numerous conferences and terms like loss and mitigation and climate finance, we’re still facing rising temperatures, floods, and droughts. Why are we not succeeding? Are we missing the right approach?
Sadhguru: “Succeeding in what, exactly? The problem is that there’s no clear, actionable goal. We talk about economic development, which many nations pursue without pausing to consider its impact on the planet. At the same time, those who have already achieved a certain quality of life tell others not to follow the same path. It’s a paradox. We tell people to give up hydrocarbons—coal, oil—yet offer no viable alternatives. If we shut off hydrocarbons today, this very conference wouldn’t last ten minutes!
We’re all focused on what to give up but lack sustainable, scalable alternatives. Solar, wind, and similar sources only cover a tiny fraction of our energy needs—less than 3 percent. For real change, we need technology that provides clean, non-polluting energy, but we’re far from that. Nuclear energy is a powerful option, yet there’s too much activism and fear surrounding it. Meanwhile, electric cars, often touted as solutions, don’t really address ecological well-being; they just reduce urban air pollution.”
IPS: And what about faith? Can it play a role in addressing the climate crisis?
Sadhguru:
Let’s not focus on faith in the context of climate change. It’s our responsibility to act. When things go wrong due to human error, people often call it fate or God’s will. But this crisis is of our making. And the crisis we talk about isn’t the planet’s—it’s a crisis for human survival.
Life on Earth relies on delicate interconnections, from insects to microbes. If these were wiped out, life on the planet would soon collapse. Ironically, if humans disappeared, the planet would thrive.
This is the perspective we need: climate change threatens our existence, not the Earth’s.
see the rest of it here
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/11/climate-change-threatens-our-existence-says-indian-spiritual-leader-sadhguru/#google_vignette
Sadguru’s main Save Soil + Climate Change action website
52% Of agricultural soils are already degraded
Save Soil is a global movement to address the soil crisis by uniting people across the globe to stand up for soil health, and support leaders of all nations in actioning policies toward increasing organic matter in agricultural soil.
The Solution
Bring back at least 3-6% organic matter in the soil–By bringing the land under shade from vegetation & enriching the soil through plant litter and animal waste.
https://consciousplanet.org/en/save-soil
One does not need to be a scientist to understand what needs to be done to address the causes of climate change and global warming. The solutions are often rooted in common sense and basic principles of sustainability: reducing dependency on fossil fuels, transitioning to cleaner energy sources, protecting natural ecosystems, and curbing wasteful consumption.
As Sadhguru insightfully points out, the challenge lies in offering practical, scalable alternatives rather than focusing solely on what must be given up. While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise.
Gandalf: Great post. Well done. This part, as you might guess given my other comments, especially resonates with me:
=== Start quote
"the challenge lies in offering practical, scalable alternatives rather than focusing solely on what must be given up. While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise."
=== End quote
We're dealing with 7.8 billion people, all degrading the environment 24x365, all in pursuit of their survival and improving their std of living.
This is a powerful, constant, ubiquitous motivation-set, probably the biggest non-geological or water-cycle force on the planet. It's what's driving the Anthropocene.
Can we harness that force? It's probably the only force available of sufficient scale to address the core problems.
Recall: most of those 7.8 billion don't have the competency, time, and resources to invent and/or apply existing techs / tools / products which both meet their needs - real or perceived - and fix the planet.
That leaves the relative few, who do have the time, intent, and resources to make it possible for the rest to get their part done.
Let's call that relative few the "vanguard".
Hence: one key role of that vanguard is to get really good at - build the tools necessary - to get enough situational awareness, enough collaboration, enough capacity as to justify a start-point beach-head for strategy implementation.
As my friend said, we're really not good at that right now, and if more than a few are going to survive, our collective ability to communicate, to focus, to prioritize, to adapt and apply has to be vastly increased.
So we need a new strategy, and the tools to implement that strategy, and enough early-adopter (ready-willing and ables) to get the ball rolling.
Strategy, tools, and a quorum.
And that's why Walt's work here is so important. He's putting a road-map on the table, and asking for input, and he's talking to the ready-willing-and-ables.
It's a great start.
Yes, good analysis, thanks!
Walt:
Getting sufficient consensus on the situation and the remedies will take a lot of dialog, and a lot of time, and may never achieve sufficient coherence as to become actionable.
There may be other ways to get to that result. It may be that a cafeteria of solutions, actionable at the individual level - at a time and pace that works for each individual - will get more done.
This is why I prefer the "products" approach. Products like insulation, hydrogen production plants, and the myriad applications of hydrogen as fuel and industrial input material or even bioceramics that can be cast (using molds) into structural and building cladding elements. Consider distributed, almost-free educational materials, or household-scale food production systems.
Those products will all move the needle toward the goal-set you offer in the Manifesto.
These products can be selected and implemented on an individual basis ... these product-oriented approaches are sufficiently focused as to be achievable, don't require a consensus or top-down support.
These well-designed products offer immediate benefits - in addition to the society-wide environmental benefits - that provide the economic impetus and rationale to get started.
Getting started is the key. Each person's success would likely be made known to a social network, and then the network effect takes over, doing the hard work of awareness-building almost automatically.
This product-oriented, bottom-up, individually-driven approach - coupled with the over-arching architecture set out in the Manifesto, can get the job done.
I recommend supplementing the Manifesto with an ever-growing, well-discussed cafeteria of products - identified and contributed by all of us - that enables individuals and small communities to take concrete steps toward implementing the Manifesto.
Walt, thank you again for this terrific post.
I forwarded your post to a friend, asking for his comments. He replied, and I will post his reply below, for everyone's benefit.
====
I think walt has done a yeoman's effort on many difficult topics. I'd like to focus on the goals:
1. An adequate standard of living for all.
2. World peace.
3. Minimal impact on the environment.
I would recommend Walt ask 20 friends over to the house one night and get them to all agree on definitions of these concepts:
- adequate
- standard of living
- world
- peace
- minimal
- impact
- environment
Give the group 3 hours to reach agreement on these 7 concepts. after all, if people cannot agree on the goals, how can they possibly agree and implement ways to reach the goals? If he succeeds, let each participant repeat the process with 20 new people, and so on.
8 billion people are a tough nut to crack :)
The scale of the problem coupled with the scale of the people needed to solve it exceeds our known problem solving (or implementation) techniques. So i think we will muddle through, trying different solutions at different scales, and, in the end, nature will have her way. Its what we have always done because its really all we can do :)
Human groups only unite at the precipice. Having studied many of these topics for at least 20 years, I can appreciate the desire to avoid the precipice, to solve the 'problem' before its 'too late'. here nature can guide us: she (Nature) is not top down, she is bottom up.
What saves a species in an extinction event is the small little subset that survives, the ones who are 'just variant enough' to escape the full force of the bad conditions.
Humans have been through at least one bottleneck, where we got down to about 1000. They didn't solve the big problem; they found a niche where the conditions were survivable (with appropriate adaptation). Without them, we wouldn't be here.
Hey, man, 20 to the 3rd power is 8000. Maybe we should try for that :) Perhaps we don't need one solution; we need a million solutions (8b/8k).
If we build a million geoships* per year, all over the world, it won't save the planet - but it might save humanity. If 8000 people know how to make a food forest, given the right conditions, we might just make it through.
20 years ago, these problems would keep me up at night. now i sleep like a baby :)
=======
* A "geoship" is a housing structure made from bioceramic. If you're not familiar with the concept, visit this website: www.geoship.is/
"CONCLUSION
The human race is at war, both with itself, and the environment. I think it unlikely that it has the sense to avoid either or both catastrophes. This manifesto can be developed and produced with the assistance and agreement of a legion of thinking people: ultimately, perhaps it will be renamed “A Survivors’ Handbook”."
First, I salute the care and clarity you put into your writing.
Second, I disagree with many aspects! Briefly, without long explanation:
- overly materalist perspective
- to solve human race being 'at war' with self an environment, more advanced civilizations are required, not so much in terms of technology (your emphasis) but morals, spirituality, wisdom.
- if the latter were done, all other problems would be resolved satisfactorily; however whilst an overly materialistic paradigm persists, as it does in all major civilizations these days, they will not be fixed
- the carbon thesis is rubbish
- the climate change notion is the single biggest obstacle to people wrapping their heads around the issue you rightly started your piece off with, the species extinction (and general environmental degradation).
- we need to develop better ways of managing human life, urban and rural, in accord with Nature not against. This is primarily a cultural, not technological, issue. The belief that we can first view and then remedy all these problems through a technological/scientific lens is the natural result of over-reliance on reductionist materialism which is the worst legacy of this Modernist Age which started about two hundred and fifty years or so ago and is now infecting the whole planet in some sort of world wide civilizational miscagenation.
We need more common sense and wisdom based on perennial philosophical and spiritual skeins found in all great civilizations but which have been taking the back seat since the Industrial Revolution fuelled by parasitic Money Powers and mercantilism. Some nations are doing better than others in this regard but all these days are far too materialistic and therefore lack the ability to course correct based on sound moral principles which have been obfuscated in the 'modernization' ethos.
My two cents!
Again, enjoyed your piece!
continuation:
3) Climate change is not CAUSED by rising CO2 content, it is merely indicated by it. The CO2 content of the atmosphere FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not the other way around. We are actually near an all-time low now.
Burning fuel does not change the climate. The whole madness surrounding “climate protection” and “net zero” is once again pseudo-scientific hype with a purely power-political motivation, the aim of which is to be able to tax all expressions of human life and subject them to digital control. Net Zero is a semi-religious death cult and a globalist Ponzi scheme, but not a science. My job exposes me to this madness on a daily basis.
That does not mean we should continue to "drill baby drill" and "burn baby burn" but we should slow it down for entirely different reasons, and put our focus entirely elsewhere but on CO2. The climate will do what it does, we need to prepare for the change, not foolishly try to stop it.
Solar and wind energy have severe ecological and health side effects that are hardly realised by most people. Conventional nuclear plants are the most toxic and dangerous invention of mankind and need to be stopped a.s.a.p. Alternatives are available for decades but still being suppressed by the powers-that-be, because the are decentralised in nature and cannot be subjected to central control. Their use would mean energy autonomy on a household and community level. The powers-that-be dread nothing as much as our autonomy and thus, their loss of control.
You have the facts dead wrong in some aspects, which leads to false conclusions. I will only address one area that touches my profession, and that is the "myths of fossil fuels”.
1) We are NOT approaching “peak oil” and we never were. There is no such thing as “peak oil”, that is a propaganda myth invented by the Club of Rome to exert political pressure. The industry finds new reservoirs every week because we know better where to look. And the existing reservoirs, which were thought to be depleted, are slowly but steadily replenishing themselves.
2) Oil and gas are NOT “fossil”, nor is coal. The only “fossil” fuel is lignite, which is actually made from decomposed forests. Oil and natural gas are NOT former wood. The origin of these substances lies in the depths of the earth. In the depths there is bacterial life that emits methane. This gas rises to the surface, combines into larger molecules and continues to rise until it encounters impermeable rock and thus resistance, at which point it accumulates. But most of it just keeps rising to the surface and into the atmosphere, totally natural and totally inevitable. According to the conventional narrative, methane causes multiple times the "greenhouse effect" of CO2. Anything we humans add by burning fuel is a tiny fraction of the natural occurence of the so-called "greenhouse gases".
Now the oil industry know better where to look: in the past, following the "fossil" error we were exploring maily in areas where it was believed that aeons ago there were giant forests. Now, we have dropped that false belief and we are instead looking for impermeably dome-shaped rock formations, and that means exploration is far more successful.
I urge everyone with a functioning brain to read the book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by the eminent and superb scientist Thomas Gold. It is a true eye-opener.
3) Climate change is not CAUSED by rising CO2 content, it is merely indicated by it. The CO2 content of the atmosphere FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not the other way around. We are actually near an all-time low now.
Burning fuel does not change the climate. The whole madness surrounding “climate protection” and “net zero” is once again pseudo-scientific hype with a purely power-political motivation, the aim of which is to be able to tax all expressions of human life and subject them to digital control. Net Zero is a semi-religious death cult and a globalist Ponzi scheme, but not a science. My job exposes me to this madness on a daily basis.
That does not mean we should continue to "drill baby drill" and "burn baby burn" but we should slow it down for entirely different reasons, and put our focus entirely elsewhere but on CO2. The climate will do what it does, we need to prepare for the change, not foolishly try to stop it.
Solar and wind energy have severe ecological and health side effects that are hardly realised by most people. Conventional nuclear plants are the most toxic and dangerous invention of mankind and need to be stopped a.s.a.p. Alternatives are available for decades but still being suppressed by the powers-that-be, because the are decentralised in nature and cannot be subjected to central control. Their use would mean energy autonomy on a household and community level. The powers-that-be dread nothing as much as our autonomy and thus, their loss of control.
Same in Koreayellow leaved Ginko Trees dropping fruit everywhere.
I think I need to explain, before this gets out of hand, that the Gingko is Redlisted because very few undomesticated examples remain in the wild, and these entirely perhaps in Southeast China. The examples you quote are the equivalent of near extinct animals mainly surviving in zoos.
The ginkgo leaf is the Symbol of Tokyo City, with thousands of trees everywhere. Kyoto has ginkgo trees too, but they are in shrines all over Japan. And now is the season for the yellow leaves.