They're just changing bait. They don't give a shit about the climate but since it's all the rage and governments are handing out "green" subsidies and tax credits like Halloween candy, time to jump in.

And as to they whom you mention, as an engineer there's a lot of what he says I agree with (especially when he brings the docs so I can go my own DD). There's a lot of green energy fast sells and falsehood's out there. I adhere to a multi pronged approach moving forward but the most important one that will make the biggest difference in climate change is going to be the hardest one... us.

First of all the planet needs to get to a net -1% number of people per year for the next 100 years just to get us viable and then continue at as high of a negative as we can. We are at the breaking point of the number humans this planet can sustain without going into a massive die off of not just species, of us. We keep pro-creating at this pace to be blunt, we will truly fuck ourselves into oblivion in less than a century. Life however will carry on

Then IF we can do that then we MUST start living 100% completely opposite of the way we are, from our daily habits to damn near everything we think we need to buy, use or eat and how and where we shit. We can miraculously invent something super clean (all the way through the chain, not just the tailpipe or chimney) and efficient, or fusion or even the impossible perpetual energy source tomorrow and it won't matter, we can't go on with this mass consumption model. That's going to require a psychiatric treatment on a Galactic scale, otherwise their will be a massive die off of not just species, of us. But again as the saying goes, life will go on.

Those 2 things are the leading contributors to our emissions delta.

So are we just fucked? Should we just throw our hands in the air? I'd say well kinda and no not quite yet. I think we have a slim chance. So, IMO, immediately we need to take a multifaceted energy approach including nuclear. Sorry, but there's no other way I can see. I've read and read and read on this and at least in the short term (like 100 years minimum) we need to add nuclear to our multifaceted approach. Don't like it, not because it's dangerous (compared to what we do now it's not) but yeah, like others I have a problem with the waste (which we need to stop all waste products of everything as much as possible). That's my only issue with it long term. I have a friend who was a nuke in the Navy and he really sold me on it 40 years ago. Do I want 5 in every state? Hell no, but there are a lot of nuclear options out there that are much safer than they were 60 years ago. Combined with other smart green energy solutions it could buy us some time to address the things above.

We got into this in like 150 years, it's probably going to take us twice that to get out of it if you ask me, we have to slam the brakes on emissions NOW. We need to go net neutral fast, I mean like now fast. And in the process we need to completely move from this mass consumption socioeconomic model.

None of the solutions are easy, they all are going to be painful as hell. And emissions from burning fossil fuels just scratch's the surface. Fossil fuels are in EVERYTHING we touch, eat and breath 24/7. We are ADDICTED. And if you've ever known and addict or maybe even are one (you're addicted to fossil fuels for sure) you know just quitting is the first step. Recovery is a life long process and so it shall be with the human race.

If we want our kids to have a ball of rock they can ride around the Galaxy on we've got no choice IMHO.

Peace and Carrots

...their products with the good ole' bait and switch "we're going hydrogen" game.

Toyota, Honda, BMW, Siemens, Alstom, Cummins, all dependent on fossil fuels for their business, what a nice list!

Personally, I'm offended by giant fossil fuel dependent companies declaring themselves arbiters of the future, because I think they're full of shit.

If we had a dime for every marketing scam by fossil fuel dependent companies to claim they're "green," we could be rich.

If I were running a scam to pretend my company is "green," the 50 year old hydrogen scam, which has always had great marketing value because people value marketing over science, is obviously a great way to divert attention from the fact that all of these companies are involved in having created the extreme global heating condition now observed.

Of course they want to divert attention from reality, pretend they're going green.

The laws of physics are not subject to marketing budgets put out by giant corporations, nor articles in business magazines hyping the marketing budget.

Personally - and indeed people are free to believe cheap marketing scams by corporations, in fact, the usually do, I rely on scientific journals, not transparent advertising.

I love to point to one of my favorite posts in this space, which has reference to scientific publications, not dishonest news releases from the marketing departments of corporate "leaders."

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

In it is a nice graphic from a scientific publication showing how the filthy product hydrogen is made, and how it's used:



The caption:

Progress on Catalyst Development for the Steam Reforming of Biomass and Waste Plastics Pyrolysis Volatiles: A Review Laura Santamaria, Gartzen Lopez, Enara Fernandez, Maria Cortazar, Aitor Arregi, Martin Olazar, and Javier Bilbao, Energy & Fuels 2021 35 (21), 17051-17084]

I referred to this graphic, and reproduced it, separately discussing a paper in the journal I discussed above here: The current sources and uses of hydrogen.

What part of this picture is hard to understand? The black dangerous natural gas 48% part? The green coal 18% part? The red 30% oil part? (My link above demonstrates for the 4% electrolysis, what part of that is electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.)

My general feeling as a scientist is that scientists need not be, should not be, offended or intimidated by smarmy marketing, but rather have a responsibility to point to it for what it is, to confront it. I am unashamed to do so, and in fact, consider it an ethical responsibility.