But it is still goodbye, Florida, goodbye, much of East Anglia.
Plus several Pacific Islands, half of Bangladesh and millions of others who live only a few inches, or feet, above sea level.
I believe, in terms of AGW mitigation, the term "renewable energy" is a misnomer and also misused. What we really need is "Carbon Neutral Energy" and that is a totally different discussion.
For instance biomass is carbon neutral. If we grow a forest the size of the Sahara and burn that forest in power stations, the net result is, pretty much, carbon neutral. Especially if we log the forest and transport it using the energy from the biomass.
This is where pragmatism and evangelism crash into each other in the harsh reality that this planet is never going to see 10bn people. Because we'll be killing each other off before we see 9bn people; as the climate overwhelms us and the starving masses try to descend on the more balanced countries of the world.
This is why I state that people who claim they can switch off baseload nuclear power and replace it with wind and solar are fanatics who are embedded in the "environmental" activism of the 20th century and totally divorced from the reality of the 21st century challenges; of climate change and the need to stop it.
Until we stop talking about things which are nothing more than pipe dreams and start talking about practical realities, then this discussion will rage on without end.
We don't need to reduce our energy footprint. We need to MASSIVELY increase the carbon neutral energy generation and remove other carbon based energy sources. Once we have a massive surplus of carbon neutral energy, we can start to use that energy to fix the problem we have created.
Trying to stop climate change, by continuing to use fossil fuel in any way, is like trying to win a prize fight with both hands tied behind your back. Essentially leading with your chin and going down in the first round...
Why will this message never be taken up?
Because the vast majority of those who champion the need to fight climate change are fundamentally divorced from the reality of the masses and how they think and what they believe. Essentially those who know we need to resolve climate change are unable to communicate effectively with the masses because they don't understand them and have no idea how to communicate with them.
Witness talking about pricing carbon out of the market. All the masses hear is TAX. Once they hear TAX you become a politician and they are then, as they see it, fully within their rights to disbelieve any word you say.
Why is it so important?
Because the fight for the end to climate change is the determining fight of our age. For if we lose it, then the price will be the species.
Many people can't understand my stance about "environmentalists" and how damned dangerous they are in terms of fighting climate change. Let me try and make it clear. They spend their lives stopping carbon neutral energy because of the "potential" damage to the Environment. Yet if we lose the battle against climate change, because we continue to use carbon fuel; the Environment is going to resolve the problem itself. By removing Humans from planet Earth!
If you look at it with that viewpoint, the irony is too thick to cut with a chainsaw...
So when we talk about "Renewable Energy" let us not fall into the belief that "renewables" are the ONLY way, or even the very best way, forward. Let us understand the "renewables" are part of the mix of energy needs for the future.
Also let us stop trying to bottle up our energy use into a smaller space where renewables can cope and let's start creating a space where renewables are the quick reacting, variable, cheap and plentiful, source of energy which can be consumed at times of highest generation.
Then we can get the planet off the other 75% of energy they use which is not electricity based.
I know this won't change the discussion but I just had to say it.