No, it's about the economy. Any alternative energy is going to have to be a drop-in replacement for current energy sources or it will be a complete non-starter (without heavy subsidies). Maybe we should consider finding this drop-in replacement our next moonshot? Or just embrace nuclear power and be done with it.
If things are that bad, big movements on water and energy markets will influence each other (because you can use energy to purify or desalinate water).
I don't think this is something that can be won, really, other than in a politics and power influence sense. Not to take analogies to where they oversimplify things, but this is similar to M.A.D.; we share the damage we do, locally, then globally. For us, the shortcut to energy production is in the industry already in place (with its centuries-old history and political power). Until that shifts, we'll keep going the same direction and worry about long term when we have to.
Solar energy production is still in its infancy when you compare it to fossil fuels production, in China or anywhere else. I suspect the high output of actual solar panels are more (or just as much) a symptom of market than environmental concerns.
I wonder what prevents the use of "salt water" for fracking? We have an abundant supply of that resource; maybe prevents the oceans from rising too! (I am joking)
Based on a quick read of [1], it seems that using saline water is more expensive because of the preparation that is needed, so for now, it is easier to start with fresh water and add additives.
Also seems the consideration is about saline aquifers and not ocean water. I suspect the cost of transporting ocean water is the issue leading to this consideration.
If we want to limit climate change to +2°C, we must leave 80% of hydrocarbons into the ground. This option is not showing in the prices of energy companies. It's just not going to happen.
The good news is that so far climate models have all been dramatically wrong in their predictions of global mean temperature, and that all of them have erred on the high side. It's striking how little knowledge climate activists have of relevant evidence.
It will be bloody and violent and probably the single largest amount of human suffering from a single event in the short history of our civilization.
While it is an oversimplified game, Fate of the World can help show how increasing temperatures puts more energy into global systems resulting in intense storms, droughts, flooding, wildfires, famines, etc, and how that destabilizes regions leading to less effective ability to implement anti-warming policy.
On the bright side, forecasters that rely on computer models of massive systems often end up making horribly inaccurate predictions. For example, we usually get tomorrow's weather wrong.
Do you know which translation/edition the article's version of the quote is from? I've looked through 3 so far, can't find it in this exact wording. Not trying to nitpick, just annoyed I can't find it. The tone and meaning of the English translations changed a couple of times drastically.
The Nietzsche quote is not only out of (very meaningful) context, but also from a poor prewar translation, as far as I can tell. Even so, anyone even slightly familiar with Nietzsche's tone should see the irony of appropriating this in the article's reasoning.
