What does “A disorderly transition to renewables” mean


Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

I read that according to a report from Verisk Maplecroft an orderly transtion towards renewables is no longer likely for the G20:

“Because the G20 is way behind, that raises the prospect of more dramatic and disruptive policy action in the relatively near future. “[K]eeping the 2°C Paris Agreement target in sight will require widespread government intervention over the coming decade,” the report says.” (bron)

1.5 degrees warming will likely be reached by 2025, and so this spells 2 degrees warming is in the cards and stopping it will be hard.

“Our data underscores that it is clear there is no longer any realistic chance of an orderly transition”

But what does that mean. If the effects of warming will take hold, this means floods, famines, heatwaves, torrents. We see them today in Russia, the US. 48 Celsius temperatures in the arctic. The weather extremes will become such that it will be hard to survive or even have a functioning society. Even though warming is already 1 on average, local extremes can mean +15 degrees or more.

A small but powerfull tornado tore through a Leersum this year. These storms pass in minutes but leave a warzone

The problem with the above is that the disorder can be explained in two ways. First it can mean sudden severe restrictions on fossil emissions and certain industries. Secondly it can mean that society breaks down. This is not unlikely if there is no food, no water, too much heat. As the warming proces and its extreme effects are real, this consequence can also be real.

Should we pretend there will be a society in 20 years time and do what we allways did? Earth is not the same planet anymore. The conditions for this evolutionairy shift are quickly slipping away, and so will the life that it brought forth. It seems the “”Big Dying” will get a repeat. The question is how quick will we fail to cooperate as we do today. It is not scary but existential and imporant to consider. Already it is hard to get help of many kinds the way you could 20 years ago.

There should be a definite simulation of the future according to the worst case scenario, or maybe a modest active scenario. What it produces is what will happen. Then we need to act on what will happen, everyone individually, and perhaps we need to organize in order to deal with it. If we trust the government we will see that it will be all about money, nothing else. It will be about jobs for people that turn over a lot of fossil fuels. This is what our system is based on, our system of banks, of government of industry. How do we get out of this run away train?