HEATED

“Which initiatives / organizations / companies – teams / groups of people / individuals are actually working towards impactful climate change solutions?”

Personal changes work to a point. Take for instance solar power in Aus.

“The sudden rise in solar PV installations in Australia since 2018 dramatically propelled the country from being considered a relative laggard to a strong leader by mid-2019. Australia has the highest per capita solar capacity, now at more than 1kW per capita.” €

€ <https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PViA-Report-2022-AUS_v3.pdf>

That’s not enough. For humanity on Earth to survive, the Petrol/Oil/Gas Industry cartels must be destroyed and dismantled.

How? by working out who & what are exploiting the energy Industry:

“How regular taxpayers are subsidizing the ultra-wealthy's use of climate-polluting private jets” ¥

¥ <https://heated.world/p/they-pollute-you-pay-literally>

> Interesting. In effect I think you are asking how the opposition should appeal to the supporters.

Exactly. The opposition has to realize that they are outnumbered, at the moment ; but this is not a static or permanent things.

By definition, every majority hangs on "swing voters", and is ousted when the swing voters decide to swing again.

"Appealing to your base" is how you win primaries ; if you continue beyond that, and insist on "purity", "support 100% of our causes, or you're a facist", while the other side has a "big tent" strategy, then you only alienate potential supporters, and opposition is going to be long.

(Caveat: of course, this assumes pretty "normal" conditions where elections happen fairly, on a regular basis, etc...)

Also, about the role of "kids" in those discussion, one side obviously knows how to do it _very_ well: [1]

[1] https://heated.world/p/climate-science-isnt-giving-your

There was also this business about removing fact-checking of a bunk climate science article at the behest of a Republican congressman:

https://heated.world/p/fact-check-of-viral-climate-misinformation

My interpretation of this is not that Facebook has a conservative bias (what does it even mean for a company to have a bias?), but that Facebook's leaders are well aware that the company are extremely vulnerable to regulation, and that keeping the current administration sweet is a good way of evading regulation. If the US enters 2021 with a Democratic administration not hamstrung by a Republican congress, i would expect the apparent bias to evaporate or reverse.

You're now trying to pretend that having a few reactors extended (after expensive work which costs roughly as much as replacing them) doesn't mean they typically shut down long before planned (usually after running at a huge loss for a decade or so). It's exactly the same lie again.

Paying $15/W now *and then* $30/MWh on top *and then* having an option of paying $1-2/W later isn't somehow superior to paying $2/W for an equivalent amount of power now and amortising it at $24-40/MWh and then using the 80% of money left over for storage or whatever you please.

https://heated.world/p/big-oils-favorite-way-to-lie-paltering