Anony Mous please provide a URL, if possible, to back up your claim (stated on page 8 of this topic thread) of "... IPCC currently models a 1-1.5C temperature change by 2100 with a 2.5-3C in the worst case where everyone goes back to coal/wood burning. Oh, yes, since pre-industrial time. That is still more than 50 years off the prediction of the book and several degrees as well, depending on outcome."
My understanding that the IPCC is not saying that current trends will limit global warming to only 1.5°C (above pre-industrial levels) by 2100. Instead the IPCC website says that humankind needs to take efforts to make sure that at 2100 global warming does not exceed 1.5 ºC (above pre-industrial levels) and that it looks like such will not be achieved. Notice that https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ says the following.
"FAQ 2.1: What Kind of Pathways Limit Warming to 1.5°C and Are We on Track?
Summary: There is no definitive way to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This Special Report identifies two main conceptual pathways to illustrate different interpretations. One stabilizes global temperature at, or just below, 1.5°C. Another sees global temperature temporarily exceed 1.5°C before coming back down. Countries’ pledges to reduce their emissions are currently not in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
... This IPCC special report identifies two main pathways that explore global warming of 1.5°C. The first involves global temperature stabilizing at or below before 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The second pathway sees warming exceed 1.5°C around mid-century, remain above 1.5°C for a maximum duration of a few decades, and return to below 1.5°C before 2100. The latter is often referred to as an ‘overshoot’ pathway. Any alternative situation in which global temperature continues to rise, exceeding 1.5°C permanently until the end of the 21st century, is not considered to be a 1.5°C pathway.
... Countries that formally accept or ‘ratify’ the Paris Agreement submit pledges for how they intend to address climate change. Unique to each country, these pledges are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Different groups of researchers around the world have analysed the combined effect of adding up all the NDCs. Such analyses show that current pledges are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. If current pledges for 2030 are achieved but no more, researchers find very few (if any) ways to reduce emissions after 2030 sufficiently quickly to limit warming to 1.5°C. This, in turn, suggests that with the national pledges as they stand, warming would exceed 1.5°C, at least for a period of time, and practices and technologies that remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a global scale would be required to return warming to 1.5°C at a later date.
A world that is consistent with holding warming to 1.5°C would see greenhouse gas emissions rapidly decline in the coming decade, with strong international cooperation and a scaling up of countries’ combined ambition beyond current NDCs. In contrast, delayed action, limited international cooperation, and weak or fragmented policies that lead to stagnating or increasing greenhouse gas emissions would put the possibility of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels out of reach."
The IPPC's assessment that the nations of Earth have not pledged enough to limit year 2100 global temperature to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is very discouraging to me.
Anony Mous I noticed that on page 7 of this topic thread you said the following. "I still want to see solutions promoted that don’t require thousands to die in order to minimize the human impact on the environment. I want to see sustainable solutions, that don’t require resources worse than oil." What gives you the impression that current proposed solutions require thousands of people to die? I am not aware of any environmental proposals which would require people to die. In contrast, I see that if humankind fails to halt global warming within a few decades then that will cause many millions of people to die!
Vidqun I notice that on page 7 of this topic topic thread you said that wind turbines are not recycled. While that statement might be 100 correct it is now possible to recycle the wind turbines. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support (in an article dated October 17, 2022) says the following.
'Carbon Rivers, a company that produces advanced material and energy technologies, has commercialized a process to recover clean, mechanically intact glass fiber from decommissioned wind turbine blades. Glass fibers are a key part of the composite—a material made up of multiple constituents such as polymers and fibers—used to create wind turbine blades. Typically, turbine blades are 50% glass or carbon fiber composite by weight. However, Carbon Rivers upcycles all components of the blade, including the steel.
... A sustainable, circular economy for the wind energy industry means that materials that previously ended up in post-consumer waste streams can go directly into next-generation turbine blade manufacturing.
... Carbon Rivers is now in the process of separating part of its business into a stand-alone entity called Windfall Inc. which will develop the first full-scale U.S.-based glass fiber recycling facility. This is, however, not the only historic thing about the future Windfall plant: their site located outside Knoxville, Tennessee originally supported nuclear weapons production as part of the Manhattan Project.
... The planned facility is expected to process approximately 200 metric tons, or 5,000–7,000 fiberglass wind turbine blades each year, depending on blade size and generation. The recovered fiberglass can then be directed into new composites production.
“With Carbon Rivers’ novel process, today’s decommissioned blades can become tomorrow’s wind turbine blades and electric vehicles,” Benson said.'
