Optimistic?

 I alternate between deep pessimism about the climate emergency and cautious optimism.

The reasons for pessimism are obvious. So why the cautious optimism?

The answer lies in the plunging costs of renewables and batteries. It was always hard to urge poor countries to embrace renewables when they cost more than fossil fuels. So while some rich countries used subsidies and directives to encourage the growth of renewables―Germany's emissions, for example, are now back at 1950s levels―poor countries were prolly not going to follow suit.

But all that's changed. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most of the world, and the rapid decline in the cost of batteries (halving every 3 years) means that 'firming' the output of wind and solar farms is becoming cheaper and cheaper. What's more, greening electricity supply was the hardest part of decarbonising, and it's now the easiest part. At the same time, because electricity production is becoming greener, as electric vehicles get cheaper, the world's car and lorry and bus fleets will progressively move to EVs. Electricity generation contributes ~30% of CO2 emissions, land transport ~20%. Which means the world could actually get close to halving emissions by 2035, even before we start on iron and steel, cement, agriculture and chemical manufacturing.

Whatever the Republicans and other denialists like Australia's National Party MP,  David Littleproud think, the fact is that demand for coal, and eventually gas, too, will fall. This will happen whatever posturing and virtue signalling right-wing denialists do. Their pig-headedness has consequences, though. Coal communities are being lied to. Coal cannot be saved. Planning should start now for an orderly transition, for development programs that create jobs to replace those lost.

Source:NOAA

Global temperatures are rising by 0.2 degrees C every decade. If we get close to zero emissions by 2050, that rate of increase should slow, although there are lags in the system. But, because of feedbacks and tipping points, such as the elimination of Arctic sea ice, even after man's CO2 emissions have reached zero, temperatures could continue to rise. By 2050, the chances are that global temperatures will on average be at least 0.6 degrees C higher than they are now. And we are already 1 deg C above the 1900-1999 average. Not good.  The consequences of  the rise we have already seen are obvious.  How bad will a rise of another 0.6 or 0.8 or 1 degree C be?  Average global temperatures in September were the highest ever recorded for that month, while the year to September was the second highest, even though there is a La Niña occurring. We're running out of time.

So, cautiously optimistic, despite the half-witted convulsions of the Right, because economics is on our side now. The thing is, we need to achieve zero carbon sooner than 2050, if we are to avoid a disastrous rise in global temperatures.  And although the economics of renewables favour a rapid transition, powerful vested interests are very happy with the status quo, and would like to delay the shift to zero carbon as long as possible.  Hence the pessimism.