On the profitability of emissions and reducing them, I have no...

On the profitability of emissions and reducing them, I have no doubt that electrification etc.. will clear a logjam and allow industry to make a quantum leap in efficiency and indeed profitability. I'm a techno sort of guy, I love that. What I am saying is that the emissions from the transition itself need to be taken into account. After all this time, globally, emissions are still increasing. China's recent annual rise was worsened by the manufacturing of energy transition materials - solar panels and all the rest.

My summary is that renewables don't fix the climate crisis, they make it worse, but at a slower rate than fossil fuels. So the energy transition is better, but it's not enough. It might buy us a few years.

I also think the record temperatures we are seeing are consistent with the "overshoot" model. What we needed to do years ago was stop burning fossil fuels immediately and not wait around for alternatives to become available. This would mean slowing down industrial output, accepting lower growth or even economic contraction, accepting load shedding etc... The scary temperatures now are the result of decisions made 10 or 20 years ago. The transition, with its 2050 (or in the case of China 2060) target dates, is actually a promise to continue doing for decades the things we should have STOPPED doing decades ago. The promise of a future emissions stoppage is highly dependent on technologies which have not been invented yet and may prove to be unviable.

Shutting down industry is clearly a big ask. Politically and economically, it's almost like demanding the speed of light be exceeded. It breaks the rules. It's not reasonable, and not just in terms of business and economics. There's a sociological aspect to the overshoot hypothesis, that we are collectively, socially and biologically incapable of stopping ourselves. Depleting resources in a way which causes future disaster is like an appetite or a sexual urge. The only thing that will stop us causing the disaster is the coming of the disaster itself.

So sure, let's have an energy transition, let's get green steel and hydrogen off the ground. It's A Good Thing. I just think it's not good enough.

I acknowledge that there are actual climate scientists (e.g. Michael Mann) who disagree, and think the transition can work out before it's too late. I'm more convinced by the position of James Hansen, that we've fired a bullet and we can't chase after it, catch it and put it back in the gun. Mann's position is hanging by a thread, if the numbers keep rising he'll soon have to switch sides, or give up being a serious scientist and become a denialist. I think he'll switch.

Sorry I'm so verbose, I will go back in my cave now!