Achieving climate targets is primarily limited by politics, institutions and humans, not technology, solutions or money.
It's values and priorities, about who we are. (1/7)
It's values and priorities, about who we are. (1/7)
Comments
An ambitious climate goal also makes sense economically: the benefits of investing in innovation, solutions and clean energy will outweigh the cost of inaction, e.g. ... (3/7)
In other words: the world is changing rapidly (technology, demographics). "No change" is impossible. (4/7)
The real problem is us. It's people, politics and institutions. (5/7)
There are still many unknowns when it comes to local adaptation or technology. (6/7)
It's about who we are.
(7/7)
Even though new technology will be necessary, if things stay as they are, the overall effect on that dependency may well be disastrous.
I tend to agree, but the unfortunate reality is that societal change is very hard and slow, whereas technology can be implemented quickly. We should do both.
As it stands, we're crossing our finger with 95% tech, 5% social change.
There's also good evidence that tech progress is slowing in the majority of fields.
The best path would have been to change in 1990 or before. We didn't, and I currently see little evidence of more willingness for social/political change. We need to try, but I won't be easy.
We can only hope social tipping points occur before the geophysical and ecological ones.
https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw?si=5A1p2oyhL8ifYQCO