Climate change, especially beyond the tipping points, is something I would never wish upon my grandchildren, let alone anyone else's, or on any other life form for that matter. The gist of what I have to say is that we have to cut GHG emissions by 43% by 2030 (compared to 2019 levels) and be completely emission free by 2050.  The 2015 COP in Paris determined that  we could not exceed 1.5°C of warming  and avoid crossing tipping points.  We are very close to that now. 2023’s COP28 in Dubai finally reached agreement that fossil fuels were the cause of global warming – but did not set any limits on fossil fuel production or how we would finance the transition for all countries, rich or poor, and build resilience to what we have already unleashed.   Do we have the technology to do it? The answer is "yes" but, we have to be mercilessly on the backs of all our leaders, globally, to move in that direction and make it all happen. There is no room for doubt. We can salvage our economies and create a much fairer, more peaceful and more sustainable global society or we can experience total, irreversible chaos.  We have to stop burning fossil fuels; individual industries, individual companies and especially individuals themselves cannot do it on their own – our whole system has to evolve. Consumers are only the tip of the iceberg!   We have to establish, NOW, a level playing field for all sectors that all are required to work within?! It won't be easy. Each country has to find their own way of accomplishing this since each is so diverse in their economics, politics, geography, cultures and resources – one shoe will not fit all. All countries will be accountable; metrics are now in place to measure progress. Rich countries will have to help the poor.  We can not afford any further efforts to delay action or create doubt on climate change.

Consumers are not innocents here.  On the other hand, what do they know about climate change – other than it is something bad?  Personally, I see very little change in people's attitudes and actions – we need to educate because it is not going away: as we burn more and more fossil fuels, it is getting worse.  We have caused this, but as guilty as each one of us is, it is largely Big Oil, Coal  and Natural Gas that are causing the bulk of the damage to our atmosphere, our environment, our health and our oceans. They have to take responsibility and make it right.  The Fossil fuel industry has spent billions on disinformation and influence.  Governments have spent billions subsidizing them. The defense industries of this world, and the wars, are built around protecting the flow of oil – ostensibly, to protect their economies.  Are the politicians educating themselves about climate change or are they burying their heads in party politics, winning elections, personal ambition, and backroom deals?  How can we get out of this?  I think the answer is the media and honest reporting.  To start, it is going to be the independent news media that is going to be fighting the battle for us, and we need to give them every support we can. If the media are not asking the questions, then it is up to us to ask the questions so the media will be forced to report on what they heard.  Parties, like the Greens of course, can be a big part of this.  If the media become educated and begin to ask the questions that need to be asked, that will swing public opinion; then the politicians will begin to see the writing on the wall and walk the walk that will dig us out of this.  Time is short.

Cop 29 is coming up in December -- governments and fossil fuel companies have been asked to develop plans to meet limits for 2030 and complete phase-out by 2050.  So far it is mostly talk and their actions seem to indicate business as usual.  With our provincial and federal elections pending, now is the time to push.

What are the solutions?  We need a crash program to transition to renewables now.   Primarily wind and solar. They are now the cheapest technologies to implement and require the shortest time to put into operation, the energy source is free, and they don't pollute. Cost effective energy storage technologies are also there to bridge the gap when the wind and sun are not available, as are energy efficient technologies and processes that can reduce our energy needs. Anything we can do to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce our energy needs is fair game – including lifestyles.  Stop using plastics, take public transport, choose electric vehicles, use less hot water, use electric heat pumps, clotheslines, buy local, xeriscape your lawn or grow a garden. (Lawns are an environmental disaster unto themselves.)  The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said global investment in clean energy needs to grow from $1.11T in 2023 to around $4 trillion a year by 2030 to reach net zero by 2050.  49% of the change can be made through efficiency; 21% by limiting the use of coal; 18% can be achieved by eliminating venting and flaring of methane at oil and gas wells; 12% could be achieved by the phasing out of the huge subsidies and tax breaks given to the oil and gas industry – fossil fuel subsidies are currently $7Trillion annually.  Every dollar invested in adaptation (preparing our homes and infrastructure for climate change’s devastating impacts) can save $13 to $15 down the road – conserving resources while better preparing us for the future.  Us little guys can do our share but the big guys can do so much more – prove the prediction by ExxonMobil that Global energy demand will increase by 15% by 2050 over 2021 demand. Bring an end to subsidies.

As for sequestering CO2, it is expensive and uses a lot of energy.  It has not  proven its effectiveness, and keeping compressed gases/liquids underground for a significant length of time is doubtful (10years??).  Also, you can only collect CO2 at large point sources and not from the atmosphere itself.

Forget nuclear. The uranium and nuclear wastes alone should warn you off.  The so-called SMRs are neither small nor proven, and they will not operate problem free.  The dream (and economics) of SMRs is to make them available to every country in the world – does that sound like we would be making the world a safer place, or just trading one problem for another?  And what is their cost and timelines for putting them into operation!?

I have already established that natural gas is going to be a worse problem than all the other fossil fuels combined -- there is leakage along every  point in its system.  Hydrogen is even worse; although it is not a greenhouse gas itself, it is very reactive: in the atmosphere, it reacts with other gases to net a greenhouse effect that is about 40 times greater than CO2 over 20 years.  As the smallest molecule on earth, hydrogen is difficult to contain.  About 20% of our GHG comes from methane, which is a larger molecule.  Extreme caution is needed if we think we want to move into a hydrogen economy.  If even 10% of the hydrogen leaked into the environment, it would wipe out any gains that we thought we were gaining.  This is particularly true of hydrogen that is formed from natural gas, which is already 86 times as damaging as CO2, over 20 years.  The other way to make hydrogen is to electrolyze water, which just seems like a waste of energy.  It could be used for specific projects, but not for general use.

We also need to put in place financing mechanisms for a major scaling up of clean energy investment in emerging and developing economies.  Poor countries are not responsible for the bulk of emissions that created the climate change mess we are in -- the rich nations can take responsibility for that one. Further, poor nations do not have the technology, nor do they have the money to create resilience to climate change, or to foot the bill for damages or even to make the energy transition. Cap and Trade does not work on an international level, because it has tended to mean that rich countries trade carbon for credits not used in poorer countries – who will then be unable to take advantage of them themselves. Cap and Trade will work at the national level, where national governments can monitor results, until all industries in a country are able to make the transition.  There seems to be an economic consensus that carbon taxes, increasing their stringency yearly, are the most effective way to move forward the larger sectors such as the fossil fuel sector, industrial and energy sectors and the agricultural and transportation sectors.

Let’s gather our wits and our courage, and the backing of the scientific community, to move to a just and sustainable society.