I buy it in the sense that I have zero confidence in soothsaying that chants the same stuff, grudgingly adding nuclear this time around, that was supposed to take place "by 2000" and "by 2010" and "by 2020" and so on, with the same horse shit renewables, biofuels, blah, blah, blah.
The new fad is the word "tripling" which, also is also thrown around by nuclear advocates, associations and some pronuclear governments.
Whence is the land and mass for tripling so called "renewable energy" supposed to come? The minerals? Ripping up the seafloor as proposed by antinuke academian Benjamin Sovacool?
"By 2050" almost every solar cell on this planet now present will be electronic waste, and every wind turbine now operating 25% to 30% of the time will be landfill operating zero percent of the time.
The IEA is pretty good at providing data, not so good at soothsaying. I say this having experienced their soothsaying and "scenarios" for decades.
I will be dead in 2050, much to the happiness of my antagonists here, but if history is still a discipline my generation will not be forgiven for leaving the agricultural fields that were supposed to provide biofuels and food having become deserts, huge holes where minerals used to be, rotting industrial parks for solar and wind that no longer function, dry beds where rivers used to flow, the ruins of skyscrapers poking out of the surfaces of poisoned coastal seas, etc, etc, etc.
I will not be here to listen to comments on my soothsaying in 2026, but nevertheless I stand by my predictions. As my cynicism has grown with age, I've regrettably been right than wrong more often than not, although I would have preferred being wrong.
It is unconscionable to expect future generations to do what we could not do ourselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read