I'll give it a shot:
I'm curious - are you simply shit-stirring, or do you really believe that solar / wind / storage is dangerous path?
People are suffering, people are dying,
Yes. Deaths from natural disasters are down around 0.02%; lack of modern medicine is orders of magnitude higher, and the lack of reliable, stable power is a large cause of that. So pushing for unreliable power sources kills orders of magnitude more than all natural disasters combined.
Your "ourworldindata.org" source has a lot of data -- but they specifically address the fact that terrorism and natural disasters are very hard to draw conclusions from -- you probably should have provided > blog post link if you want to be honest about what the numbers mean. Your "who.int" link includes the following language:
Decentralized, renewable energy solutions, coupled with energy efficiency measures, have great potential to expand health facility access to cost-effective, reliable electricity in many low-income settings where the grid is unreliable or non-existent.
Small photovoltaic (PV) solar systems are being widely used now in Africa and elsewhere to help health workers in remote areas better carry out night-time diagnosis and care of mothers in labour, charge cell phones for communications, and navigate communities after dark. PV solar-powered refrigerators are increasingly being purchased by major UN-affiliated agencies, for more robust cold-chain preservation
Which is directly contrary to your point. The WHO seems to indicate that solar power is a good thing for developing countries and power stability. I honestly thing anyone sane who looks at the technology curve of solar panels, inverters (currently showing the least cost / efficiency improvements over the last decade) and battery technology will come to the conclusion that wind / solar / storage with natural gas peaker plants that could be run as baseload for unexpected corner case events is the obvious path forward. Current design light water reactors and coal plants are not economically sound. Could someone come up with a practicaly Uranium plant? A workable, scaleable LFTR (Liquid Florine Thorium Reactor) that would pay for itself long term? Maybe -- but nobody has built one so far.
entire ecosystems are collapsing.
Try here https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fnews%2F2019%2F09%2Fthree-billion-north-american-birds-have-vanished-1970-surveys-show
Nope. The number of species on Earth are swelling rapidly, highlighting the fact we haven't a really deep understanding of ecosystems or species.
Did you really read your link?
1. It's discovered species they're talking about no not an increase in biodiversity.
2. The primary massive gain in biodiversity has to do with bacteria species living inside insects.
I think you can take as given that we don't "grok" ecosystems - but I have a hard time with you claiming that article proves we're in a chicken little situation on ecosystem health concerns. It's kind of like claiming cold snaps mean climate change is a hoax. I think the article author would be both aghast and offended at how you're taking what they've written.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction
Citation needed, because - as the link right above points out - that's not true
Your link is a bullshit non sequitur: but try this one: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2F114%2F30%2FE6089
You can debate it's accuracy but it's definitely on-point -- as your article was NOT.
and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
Yes, because as I showed in my first few links, lack of economy - and the infrastructure it provides - is the biggest killer of people on Earth. In fact, there is a good correlation between GDP and life expectancy, so why wouldn't political leaders focus on growing their GDP if they want to see their people live longer, healthier lives?
Dropping back to some mainstream articles:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4484027%2Fair-pollution-economic-toll-world-bank%2F
and OECD.org
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fenv%2Ftools-evaluation%2Fthecostofairpollution.htm
I would settle for just rational thought, hope not needed.
Why? There is no logical reason to do so, there is no fact or data that says we should panic, other than we need to IMPROVE power availability world-wide.
We have to acknowledge that the older generations have failed.
Really? If it was but 8 generations ago, you would have had 100 times more odds of dying at your birth, that's some failure all right! All those modern conveniences you take for advantage are from those earlier generations. And you can thank the members of a generation 60 years ago for ensuring you're not speaking German and saluting a new Fuhrer.
All political movements in their present form have failed.
Really? None work? Why do you reside in Norway, then? Why not North Korea, or Somalia, or Qatar?
Okay -- We've known for a while that pollution is dangerous -- I personally think that going to natural foods is a sketchy idea -- RIGHT NOW - processed foods are significantly less healthy than natural foods on average. That's because we were understandably focused on food bacteriological safety (preservatives) and cost. They then transitioned to marketing concerns -- and began following food fads "fat free", "Cholesterol free" without ensuring that the long term effects of the preservatives were safe to consume -- or that the substitutes for fat were not worse that the original. They also ignored the possibility that the food products might well encourage terrible eating habits. I think we should be putting a lot of money into mass produced, environmentally friendly, healthy food. Right now healthy food is more expensive than cheap factory farm products which often shift or hide pollution costs. We're not going to go back to an agrarian society -- and I really enjoy a steak quesadilla -- I think we can find a way to make that work.
So far however - none of our political systems have truly tackled climate change and pollution effects. Jimmy Carter tried in the late '70's. But there was a lot of money in the status quo -- Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House -- a bit of a symbolic middle finger to alternative energy. I honestly don't know how much our our solar panel research that's happened in the last 15 years could have happened in the 80's. Maybe we'd have thrown a lot of money at it and not gotten the progress we have now -- but I suspect that if we had done that - we'd have a more diverse and resilient grid today than we now have.
The world has improved in many ways over the last 80 years -- but you're drawing a false equivalency between a stable power grid and a diverse grid.
I have an issue with conservation when it hobbles progress -- but I also have an issue with the progress at any cost is good mantra.
Greta Thunburg is a bit strident for me, but she's much more grounded in reality than Trump's - Burn more coal - climate change is a hoax nonsense.
