My country is going to commit economic suicide ...

[apis]

The qualifications of Andrew Leatherbarrow are that he later did this fact finding. He travelled the region, did interviews with those involved, indexed existing official reports and consulted experts. You think he's qualified, as the point of your previous post was made based on information researched and provided by him. It's quite remarkable to now do a 180 because his information suddenly doesn't suit you. More importantly, he isn't the first to report on the stream explosion that was prevented. How things expired came to light after the Iron Curtain fell and is commonly accepted and not contended. Except by you, apparently.

So he really is just a journalist. That three brave engineers opened a valve to prevent what they at the time considered a risk of another steam explosion is not in question, but how likely it was and what the effect would have been is. I believe that journalists are competent enough to determine that the people involved weren't dead, but not that he can tell what would have happened or how likely it was.

It's not an ad hominem. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the foundation of your arguments and the thoroughness of your research, which are evidently lacking or non-existent. Poorly or unresearched arguments are unlikely to be sound. Labelling events showing the danger of nuclear power as "anti-nuclear bs" isn't a viable approach, especially when this claim is poorly researched.

It is. "argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'r the one with poorly researched arguments. The credibility of mr. Leatherbarrow is relevant since he is apparently the "expert" claiming half of Europe  nearly became uninhabitable etc. which is a fine example of scaremongering.

[Mr. Scram]

You keep pretending Leatherbarrow made these estimations himself, but that's obviously not the case. He conducted interviews with those involved and various experts. These are obviously more qualified than him, you or I. You need to stop pretending you know better than someone who did proper research and various actual nuclear experts.

This isn't a contended fact. Maybe this snipped from an old documentary will convince you. Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site. "Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of 3-5 megatonnes. Minsk, which is 320km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable." This is seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev. I assume you know who he is and how well informed he would have been.



Or maybe the words of Ukrainian President Proshenko as he awarded the three men preventing the disaster an award for the very act of preventing this massive disaster.

"On the fifth day after the accident, a so-called steam explosion was threatened. The reactor core could penetrate the lower protective plate of the reactor design and the concrete floor and get into the bubbler pool filled with cold water. It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water"said the President. "Three people, volunteers, volunteered for this courageous act, even if it became the last in the life of each of the three heroes. Despite the enormous risks, despite the extreme conditions, the operation was successful - the lives of thousands of people were saved."



https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukrinform.ru%2Frubric-society%2F2449795-prezident-vrucil-nagrady-geroamlikvidatoram-i-rabotnikam-caes.html

[apis]

No scaremongering, you got to be kidding. Is that an excerpt from the same documentary that claimed the three engineers died directly afterwards from radiation poisoning? The ones that turned out to be alive and healthy and still working in the nuclear energy industry?

You keep pretending Leatherbarrow made these estimations himself, but that's obviously not the case. He conducted interviews with those involved and various experts. These are obviously more qualified than him, you or I. You need to stop pretending you know better than someone who did proper research and various actual nuclear experts.

This might come as a surprise to you but when it comes to technical subjects it often turns out I know better than journalists and it's also common for them not to do proper research. I'm sure many others on this forum have had the same experience. Leatherbarrow can easily have made up, exaggerated and/or misunderstood what others told him and can also have misjudged the credibility of the people he interviewed. I still know nothing about his background. If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide some report/study from some credible institution. A TV-documentary and a book by an activist isn't credible basis for a serious discussion.

I don't see why I should be impressed by what politicians say either, although I can't disagree with this sentence: "It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water", indeed it is. If Gorbachev believed that it was so dangerous, do you not find it strange he didn't choose to shut down the remaining RBMK reactors. The Russians still have 11 in operation today.

Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site.

That's the first expert comment you have found supporting what you claimed, unfortunately what he's saying sounds like hyperbole. It's hard to comment on it since we don't know what analysis he based that statement on. And this snippet from his Wikipedia page doesn't exactly instil a lot of confidence "As an expert on the subject and with his experience as a fire fighter, he threw liquid nitrogen containers from a helicopter on the burning reactor core."

The soviet government clearly panicked and didn't respond completely rationally at the time, that is well documented. But who can blame them, it was a terrible disaster, about 100 people died during the accident, it must have been a nightmare. Trying to assess and react to the development of the meltdown must have been very difficult. I do not doubt they considered the water in the basement a very serious threat at the time and maybe it could have been worse. It would be very hard to accurately determine what the probability of that actually happening or what the actual consequences would have been. It's not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. It's also strange that most thorough post accident analyses do not mention this "near miss" disaster that allegedly would have made most of Europe uninhabitable don't you think.

...
For balance, here is a documentary about the risk of sudden methane release caused by the GHG emissions from coal power plants:
"Countdown to Doomsday Methane Release"

All this scaremongering isn't really helping anyone, is it, it just makes everyone look stupid.

[Kleinstein]

I also think the second explosion video is wrong in the strength of the explosion possible from contact with water. No doubt this would have been bad, but the expected explosion would be minor (more like less than the initial explosion). Still it would have been bad as the steam could now transport parts of the nuclear fuel out. This would may not have changes the radiation very much, but the decay of plutonium takes 10s of thousands of years instead of some 30 years for cesium and strontium we have to worry about now. So the area near by would be contaminated for much longer, not just a few centuries. I doubt that the contact with water would have restarted the chain reaction - so it would be only the thermal and chemical energy. There is usually no way to start a real nuclear explosion form just adding a moderator.

Avoiding the contact to water was still a big achievement and made the recovery easier. Much of the later emissions would have likely gone east anyway. So it would be deeper into Russia. The wind from the east at the time of the disaster was an exception. Chances are it would not have gone so high and far too.

Still things could have been worse: the reactor was using rather fresh fuel - with a more normal fuel age there would have been several times the amount of radioactivity in the core - though the fresh fuel was also part of why the accident happened in the first place.

[Mr. Scram]

I also think the second explosion video is wrong in the strength of the explosion possible from contact with water. No doubt this would have been bad, but the expected explosion would be minor (more like less than the initial explosion). Still it would have been bad as the steam could now transport parts of the nuclear fuel out. This would may not have changes the radiation very much, but the decay of plutonium takes 10s of thousands of years instead of some 30 years for cesium and strontium we have to worry about now. So the area near by would be contaminated for much longer, not just a few centuries. I doubt that the contact with water would have restarted the chain reaction - so it would be only the thermal and chemical energy. There is usually no way to start a real nuclear explosion form just adding a moderator.

Avoiding the contact to water was still a big achievement and made the recovery easier. Much of the later emissions would have likely gone east anyway. So it would be deeper into Russia. The wind from the east at the time of the disaster was an exception. Chances are it would not have gone so high and far too.

Still things could have been worse: the reactor was using rather fresh fuel - with a more normal fuel age there would have been several times the amount of radioactivity in the core - though the fresh fuel was also part of why the accident happened in the first place.

What makes you say this, considering actual experts disagree? It really surprises me how many people feel they know better, based on I'm not sure what exactly.

[Mr. Scram]

No scaremongering, you got to be kidding. Is that an excerpt from the same documentary that claimed the three engineers died directly afterwards from radiation poisoning? The ones that turned out to be alive and healthy and still working in the nuclear energy industry?

This might come as a surprise to you but when it comes to technical subjects it often turns out I know better than journalists and it's also common for them not to do proper research. I'm sure many others on this forum have had the same experience. Leatherbarrow can easily have made up, exaggerated and/or misunderstood what others told him and can also have misjudged the credibility of the people he interviewed. I still know nothing about his background. If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide some report/study from some credible institution. A TV-documentary and a book by an activist isn't credible basis for a serious discussion.

I don't see why I should be impressed by what politicians say either, although I can't disagree with this sentence: "It is difficult to even imagine what would happen if the molten core of the reactor touched water", indeed it is. If Gorbachev believed that it was so dangerous, do you not find it strange he didn't choose to shut down the remaining RBMK reactors. The Russians still have 11 in operation today.

That's the first expert comment you have found supporting what you claimed, unfortunately what he's saying sounds like hyperbole. It's hard to comment on it since we don't know what analysis he based that statement on. And this snippet from his Wikipedia page doesn't exactly instil a lot of confidence "As an expert on the subject and with his experience as a fire fighter, he threw liquid nitrogen containers from a helicopter on the burning reactor core."

The soviet government clearly panicked and didn't respond completely rationally at the time, that is well documented. But who can blame them, it was a terrible disaster, about 100 people died during the accident, it must have been a nightmare. Trying to assess and react to the development of the meltdown must have been very difficult. I do not doubt they considered the water in the basement a very serious threat at the time and maybe it could have been worse. It would be very hard to accurately determine what the probability of that actually happening or what the actual consequences would have been. It's not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. It's also strange that most thorough post accident analyses do not mention this "near miss" disaster that allegedly would have made most of Europe uninhabitable don't you think.

...
For balance, here is a documentary about the risk of sudden methane release caused by the GHG emissions from coal power plants:
"Countdown to Doomsday Methane Release"

All this scaremongering isn't really helping anyone, is it, it just makes everyone look stupid.

Once more, I'm going to end the discussion here. At this point the disaster prevented has been corroborated conclusively with evidence up to and including a video recording of a nuclear expert who was at the actual site at the time stating this is how things were. The various pieces of evidence all point towards the same thing and there really is little room for doubt, no matter how inconvenient the facts are. If you're still arguing otherwise it obvious no amount of evidence is going to change that, which means we'll just be endlessly fouling up the thread again.

[Kjelt]

Back to the Netherlands where this topic originally was started over, although I was very sceptical about the TS and his emotional topictitle, there are now many scientists that are publicly starting the debate against the climate goals.

translated by google translate

In a manifesto - signed by 24 professors, engineers and other experts - it is stated that the proposed climate law leads directly to a disaster. 'The objectives are unachievable', you can read. 'Enforcement causes a catastrophe of poverty, cold and hunger. Economically, the Netherlands becomes a third world country.


Ⓒ SIMON WEEDA
The epistle, which has since been sent to 380 municipalities and 21 water boards, states that the investments of possibly hundreds of billions of euros are capital destruction.
These must be paid for by the citizens and can not be spent on, for example, care, education and housing.

Energy is of vital importance, is written, and the plans can absolutely not meet our needs.
After the 'gas outing', windmills, solar power and bio-energy can hardly replace the current energy supply.
Energy is indispensable for almost everything: food supply, homes, transport, heating, lighting, roads, all industry, agriculture, livestock farming and fishing.
We tumble, as we read, like a troop of lemmings into the abyss.

Guus Berkhout, one of the supporters of the alarm manifesto, states that the group of experts has for a long time started a discussion that is more substantive than is currently the case. "And that is not easy," acknowledges Berkhout, who was, among other things, a professor of geophysics at Delft University of Technology, and at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"The Netherlands is changing in a Third World country"
"People are fully told that CO2 is the cause of all problems, which is simply not true. I hope that the population will receive better information, good information. So they know that there is another story. But how do you get there now? Almost all media do not want to know anything about it. If you have doubts about the CO2 story, all doors will close. While it is not poison gas, it is a fundamental building block for all life on earth. The more CO2, the greener the earth. Nobody can hear that hard fact. "

In the management layer, reports the epistle, the technical knowledge is virtually zero. There are also quite a few people who have an interest in the current 'climate'. That also says engineer Peter Oosterling, expert in the field of energy supply. He explains that the climate debate is a battle between 'alpha and beta', between emotion and science. "Many politicians are assisted by experts who talk and write to their mouths, and want to keep on working in the 'earning money mode'."

According to him, the climate is 'a super-technical and super-physically difficult subject', which is also not new at all. "The 'problem' has been around for decades. Only people like Al Gore have entered the political world agenda, and by alarmists like Ed Nijpels and Diederik Samsom on the Dutch agenda. "

Oosterling has serious doubts about their story with many independent co-scientists. "There is no evidence that there will be a desired effect in the current climate plans on the so-called CO2 problem, let alone that we could influence this global process. We scientists have a clear story, where we can supply all available data. The climate system is so complex, and it takes such a long time to react to a man-made input, that it is foolish to make such statements about it and to believe that we can achieve a flattening or reduction over the next decades. observe. "

Berkhout gives a lot of lectures about the subject. "Every time people are completely surprised again. The indoctrination is so serious. It is also incomprehensible that the environmental clubs are trying to pull the trolley from the climate lobby. Climate and environment are two completely different issues. "

Also where the money goes, provides care. Oosterling: "That undoubtedly goes to the clubs and supporters of climate pulp Nijpels, that of Samsom, and to other stakeholders in the climate industry."

Contrary to people who deserve it, the authors of the manifesto are, according to their own words, mainly independent. Oosterling: "I have no interest, no political connection. But I find it insane that we want to destroy so much unnecessary capital and that the citizen is spelled a terrifying story. "

He explains the link with the unrest in France. "There, the movement of the Yellow Hesjes arose after the prices for petrol and diesel went up. But why did that happen? Because President Macron needed money for his climate goals, to go along with the story of CO2 reduction. While France is the least CO2-emitting country in Europe. You also see it in the Netherlands. The referendum has not been abolished for nothing. If people have more knowledge, they will also revolt here. "

[Kleinstein]

From time to time the doubt in the climate effect of CO2 comes up. Quite often there are companies behind this, even if the web sites usually claim to be independent. From the scientific side the topic is not easy and much effects do not directly reflect our normal experience. A little like with nano-technologie thiks happen at scales we are not used to - this time with large numbers and over a long time scales. With such a difficult topic there are points that can be confusing.  However most of the points that usually come up every few years are rather stupid and easy to prove false.

Still people can get tricked to believe in conspiracy theories.  Part of this maybe because the human made climate change in an inconvenient effect - if taken serious we should for moral reasons drastically change our way of life to save the planet for future generations. So it convenient to look hard for reasons to have doubt so one has an excuse to not do the right thing.

However with such a serious topic like changing our climate doubt is not a good excuse.  The need to prove in more in the other direction: we should not chance the chemistry of the atmosphere so much and for a long time unless we are sure that this has no negative effect. So doubt should be enough to stop burning coal. This might explain why the critics often come up with so many points including obvious nonsense.

[nctnico]

The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict. If there is any effect then how is there any certainty it can be stopped or reversed? IMHO many people are overestimating the power we actually have over nature. Also conservatism is a major obstacle. The earth is changing continuously by itself.

My (long time) opinion is that reducing use of fossil fuels is good for two things for sure 1) to not rely on unstable eastern / middle eastern governments 2) fossil fuels will run out at some point. Scaremongering helps to push people to spend money on more efficient use of energy. After all 'preventing climate change' is also a huge business opportunity and everyone wants a piece of the pie. What the governments are doing is aiming high but in the end I doubt anything serious will happen. Rain & wind are just a nuisance. Build better homes.

[apis]

The scientific basis can be found here:
EDIT https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (the sixth isn't done yet, sorry)
IPCC sixth assessment report, the scientific basis

Lots of scientific organisations have made public statements regarding the science of climate change:
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing

Some counterarguments I've seen have been reasonable but if you do some digging it turns out they have been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community a long time ago (like Svensmark). Most counterarguments turns out to be complete nonsense though.

The problem is that a lot of people own coal mines, oil wells, coal power plants, etc. They don't want us to stop using fossil fuel. Some of them are incredibly powerful like President Bush, President Putin and King Salman; others are just super rich like the Koch brothers in the US who finance a lot of anti-climate change stuff. Then we have lots of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels as well.

[SiliconWizard]

The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.

The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties. Just look at the IPCC reports (which you may or may not agree with), but even those clearly show that we can't predict that reliably, and they are pretty much what most governments base their climate politics on at this point using two main arguments IMO: first the precautionary principle (which can be a good thing, but it's a shame we conveniently fail to apply it to a lot of other domains) and second, the observed relatively short-term (on a climate change scale) increase in world temperatures.

But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial. Think of major air pollution in cities like Beijing. The issue is that the only countries that have launched actions towards this goal at this point only contribute very marginally to the global CO2 emissions, and there is no sign of the major contributors doing anything significant about it at least for the coming decades. So it's pretty much like pissing in the ocean, while only raising energy costs locally for negligible positive impact on climate. Yet, this can only be positive for local pollution. CO2 should NOT be the main reason we stop using fossil fuels IMO. This CO2 obsession doesn't serve the goal as it should. Again it's based on uncertain models whereas there are a lot of very certain impacts we talk about a lot less.

[apis]

The current models that are used for this have high inherent uncertainties.

It would be weird if they did not.

[nctnico]

The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.

But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial.

Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.

[tggzzz]

The fact is that nobody can predict whether reducing the CO2 emissions has any effect. The climate as a system is just too complex to predict.

But the main issue here is not even whether reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect or not. For one thing, reducing CO2 emissions usually implies reducing emissions of a lot of pollutants due to combustion (combustion of fossil fuels in the real world rarely only emits CO2), which is obviously beneficial.

Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.

Acid rain can (and has been) mitigated.

The principal fossil fuel pollutant cannot be mitigated. When fully combusted, fossil fuel is turned into CO₂ and H₂O, The H₂O isn't a problem, but the CO₂ certainly is a problem.

[apis]

Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.

That is what it is all about, stricter emission limits for CO₂ and other GhGs. That just shows it is possible to improve things if there is political will.

Air pollution from fossil fuel burning (mainly coal) kills about 0.03% every year in Sweden... That would correspond to about 150 000 in the EU for example. Smog is a huge problem in many cities. If it was so easy to filter out then why aren't we already?

[nctnico]

Pollution can also be mitigated by having stricter emission limits so pollution is not really an argument against using fossil fuels. Back in the 80's acid rain was a big thing in Europe. Stricter emission limits have solved that and acid rain is something of the past in Europe.

That is what it is all about, stricter emission limits for CO₂ and other GhGs. That just shows it is possible to improve things if there is political will.

Air pollution from fossil fuel burning (mainly coal) kills about 0.03% every year in Sweden... That would correspond to about 150 000 in the EU for example. Smog is a huge problem in many cities. If it was so easy to filter out then why aren't we already?

Politics work slow and it takes time for new regulations to have effect.

@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.

[apis]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

[apis]

Why the fuck are we in the EU if our tiny fucking little nation will try to value signal entirely alone? What is that supposed to fucking accomplish? Installing wind mills and making industrial electricity cheap helps industry competitiveness at least, while raising consumer electricity prices and lowering disposable income, just like in Germany ... but what my government is trying now will murder our economy.

That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like  the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.

[Mr. Scram]

@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.

It is a pollutant, as the definition of that is "A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource". It's a greenhouse gas. The additional energy retained by the atmosphere makes for much more violent weather systems, which we're already seeing. Plants will love the higher temperatures and added CO2, but we will suffer significantly.

[nctnico]

@tggzzz: no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't kill you and the plants actually like it.

It is a pollutant, as the definition of that is "A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource". It's a greenhouse gas. The additional energy retained by the atmosphere makes for much more violent weather systems, which we're already seeing. Plants will love the higher temperatures and added CO2, but we will suffer significantly.

In that case vulcanos, earthquakes and storms are pollutants too... For us humans it is a matter of adapting. If you live in an area which is likely to flood when the sea levels rise then consider moving. If you are a farmer with diminishing yield then you should think hard about alternatives. Climate change isn't going away so you can either complain and suffer or adapt to the new reality.

[Mr. Scram]

In that case vulcanos, earthquakes and storms are pollutants too... For us humans it is a matter of adapting. If you live in an area which is likely to flood when the sea levels rise then consider moving. If you are a farmer with diminishing yield then you should think hard about alternatives. Climate change isn't going away so you can either complain and suffer or adapt to the new reality.

Those aren't pollutants, but vulcanos can emit pollutants. The things you mention are true, but in no way change that you should probably attempt to mitigate what is about to hurt you. If you see you're about to crash, it's sensible to brake. Even if you're not sure it will help.

[Kjelt]

The problem is that a lot of people own coal mines, oil wells, coal power plants, etc. They don't want us to stop using fossil fuel. Some of them are incredibly powerful like President Bush, President Putin and King Salman; others are just super rich like the Koch brothers in the US who finance a lot of anti-climate change stuff. Then we have lots of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels as well.

Do you have some substantiated proof of these claims that these people are actively trying to do this, or is this another wild conspiracy theory?

You can also argue the opposite, who has the most to win with the environmental horror stories that we are being bombarded with. Do these powerfull people you name have no influence over the media at all?

I am feeling more and more that both sides are just extremes.

[Mr. Scram]

Do you have some substantiated proof of these claims that these people are actively trying to do this, or is this another wild conspiracy theory?

You can also argue the opposite, who has the most to win with the environmental horror stories that we are being bombarded with. Do these powerfull people you name have no influence over the media at all?

I am feeling more and more that both sides are just extremes.

It does seem obvious that people with large interests in the status quo are going to resist changes to a new state of being, much like how tobacco has attempted to slow and diffuse the notion that smoking is inherently unhealthy.

[Kjelt]

That is a fair point: unless the US, China, India, etc, also does something it doesn't really matter what a small country like  the Netherlands does. Someone got to be first though, and there are benefits to being first as well, but in the end there has to be some sort of international plan and agreement to limit GhG emissions or it won't matter.

I agree with doing nothing solves nothing, but do you know what our wise politicians now decided?
To leave the industries, airplanes, ships and farmers as they are and just start taxing petrol, gas and energy consumption for the people. They are scared the economy will be hit.
No wonder the environmental organizations did not cosign this, it is ludicrous because they leave the biggest polluters alone. Hyprocrits.

[Kjelt]

It does seem obvious that people with large interests in the status quo are going to resist changes to a new state of being, much like how tobacco has attempted to slow and diffuse the notion that smoking is inherently unhealthy.

Yes you would think so but if you look at the media, any media, it is only "we are doomed CO2 levels are kill g us" stories.
For organizations with that much money, influence and power they do a lousy job, or is there another side to the coin?
I remember that for instance Royal Shell spent huge amounts of money in the 90s towards new energy solutions, it was stopped when it was found that the oil reserves were larger than thought but still they know that some day their model of earning money is stopping.
SAU the same, they are looking for new ways of economic growth beyond the oil era.

The best we can do IMO is investing the money in finding new cleaner ways of producing energy, the faster we find something the sooner the issue will be solved.