____________________________

Cars dominate our energy mindset just like gasoline prices are the main way we understand energy costs. Electric vehicles (EVs) tap into this mentality,
making them seem like an effective way for each of us to personally address climate change.
____________________________

EVs are a clever marketing ploy that seems logical on the surface but lacks real substance. The reality is that passenger cars contribute only about 8 %
of global emissions—a relatively small part of the bigger problem that is being overlooked.
____________________________

// What about yesterday’s announcement from the International Energy Agency (IEA) claiming that renewables can get us two-thirds of the way to
meeting Paris climate targets by 2030, and cut global emissions by 10 billion tonnes by the decade’s end?

It sounds impressive, but here’s the catch: it demands ‘tripling renewables and doubling efficiency targets’ in just five years. That’s an incredibly
unrealistic goal, and arguably disingenuous. Even the IEA admits it’s a steep climb, and reaching those objectives is far from guaranteed.
____________________________

Isn’t it true that EV sales have tripled since 2020? Sure, that’s accurate, but it’s misleading. New car sales are just a tiny slice of the total vehicle fleet.
In 2023, nearly 14 million electric cars hit the roads, bringing the global total to 40 million. But 40 million is only 2.8 % of all passenger cars. By 2025,
they’ll make up just 4% of global light vehicles, and only 7% by 2030.
____________________________

Yes, wind and solar are expanding rapidly, but here’s the problem: they aren’t cutting fossil fuel use. They’re simply being layered on top of it. The growth
in renewables isn’t displacing fossil fuels—it’s just adding to the overall energy mix.

Unfortunately, these energy sources mostly contribute to electricity, which is only about 20% of total energy consumption. Meanwhile, coal, natural gas,
and oil aren’t going away—they’re still growing. Natural gas will rise by 0.8% per year, oil by 0.5%, and coal by 0.4%.

When we focus on oil consumption, the problem becomes even clearer. Global oil end use is projected to grow 0.7% annually through 2035. Fixating on
EVs doesn’t change the larger transportation picture, which includes trucks, trains, and ships. Nor does it address the industrial sector’s energy demands.
In fact, industrial oil use will grow at twice the rate of transportation over the next decade, and that’s where the real challenge lies.
____________________________

Looking closer, most of the growth in industrial oil use is tied to plastics and chemical feedstocks. That’s a major red flag. These products aren’t just a
climate issue—they’re causing significant health problems for humans and animals alike. We’re talking about plastics, pesticides, and endocrine-disrupting
microplastics that are already wreaking havoc well beyond the realm of climate change.

In reality, they’re (renewable energy, EVs) more about corporations adapting to a shifting landscape and finding new ways to make money. The climate
angle is secondary to the business opportunities these technologies present.
____________________________

The only real solution to our environmental crises—climate change being just one part—is a dramatic reduction in energy consumption.
No amount of renewables or technological innovation will get around this hard truth: we have to use far less energy, period.

But let’s be honest—that’s not going to happen voluntarily, any more than we’ll triple renewables and double efficiency in the next five years.
Our growth-obsessed society simply can’t make the hard choices or accept the drop in living standards necessary for a much lower-energy
or renewable-based economy.

Despite clear evidence that global decarbonization is failing, we’re repeatedly told that using more renewables and buying more EVs is the answer.
That’s a cynical delusion, completely unsupported by the data. All it really does is funnel more public money into the hands of the same corporations
that have been exploiting consumers for decades, all while creating the illusion of progress.

This kind of optimism provides little more than false hope, downplaying the serious, complex challenge of truly cutting carbon emissions. Instead of
pretending we’re nearing some IEA-style “mission accomplished,” we should be bracing for the impending crisis. Electric vehicles and renewable
energy are a distraction from the hard realities we face.

China developing 1.28 bln tons of coal mining capacity
Chinese mines in progress more than half global pipeline
35% of projects in pipeline under construction
Current large-scale capacity is 3.88 mln metric tons/year
China responsible for 70% of coal mine methane emissions

o jeho podcenovani covidu toho moc nevim, nicmene to je zase cernobila zkratka :) zadny clovek nema ultimatni pravdu ve vsem, nebo patent na rozum.

Uvadis kolik lidi upozornilo na to, ze co2 dokaze atmosferu ohrat, ale to nikdo, ani ja v mych prispevcich nerozporuju. Zaroven se ti nepovedlo odpovedet ani na jednu z mych otazek :)

Myslis, ze pokud bychom negenerovali prebytky, byli bychom si zmeny klimatu vedomi?

byli bychom ji schopni pokrocile merit?

byli bychom o ni schopni komunikovat na celoplanetarni urovni s takovym zasahem?

Byli bychom schopni ji predikovat?

...jez je zalozena na prebytcich, ktere dale umoznuji specializaci, jez dale umoznuje vyssi efektivitu, tedy vice prebytku. Tzn. to kritizovani rustu a prebytku je ve svem principu uplne spatne, protoze prebytky jsou to, co lidstvu umoznilo dlouhodobe prezit a ziskat evolucni vyhodu, at uz v podobe zasob, vedeckeho poznani, nebo i kulturni evoluce.

Ted sice dochazime k tomu, ze existuji v konkretnim case limity (energeticke, materialove), ale to neznamena, ze jsme doted delali vse spatne. Naopak, pokud bychom to tak nedelali, dost mozna by tu lidstvo nebylo (doba ledova, valky, neurody,...)

pokud se budem zabejvat jen idealnim stavem a jeho statutem quo, pak si muzem rovnou usetrit spoustu casu, protoze nic takovyho jako vesmirny equilibrium neexistuje

Tvrdis, ze statisticky kvalita zivota neni lepsi, jenze se k tomu daj krasne sledovat parametry jako je prumerny vek doziti, novorozenecka mortalita atd. Pro me sou tyhle parametry baseline. Jestli mas nejake jine, lepsi, nasdilej.