This is a very weird article, so I thought of taking a look at the author. Michael Barnard has been writing in the past for Forbes magazine, is the co-founder of a couple of start-ups, and is the Chief Strategist of The Future Is Electric or TFIE Strategy Inc. It looks like:

TFIE’s mission is to ensure that as much of the trillions spent on climate solutions in the coming decades is spent intelligently, wisely and quickly.

Michael Barnard spends his time projecting scenarios for decarbonization 40-80 years into the future, and assisting executives, boards and investors to pick wisely today.

[source: https://tfie.io/]

I have the impression that he is simply not invested to geothermal. If anyone has got more info, please share.

Doomerism not helping. We get tones of it from the mass media, and from people reproducing this narrative (online and in person) that wants us to think that it’s better to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

I’m fed up with this approach.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/OzV5s

Thank you very much for this intro!

Renewables in China experienced a stellar year in 2024, with total installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaic exceeding 1,400 GW

Solar saw the biggest leap, with a record-breaking 45.2% increase (+277 GW), achieving 887 GW overall. Wind power also saw solid growth, climbing 18% (+80 GW) to almost 521 GW.

China’s renewable energy sector experienced a stellar year in 2024, with the total installed capacity of wind and solar power surpassing 1.4 billion kilowatts, further reinforcing the country’s role as a global leader in renewable energy development.

I am not really familiar with hydrogen energy. I just found this community that I will look into. Do you perhaps have some resources to share?

Nuclear marine propulsion is mainly used in naval warships, and it looks like there are some serious issues for their use in another context:

Nuclear-powered merchant ships’ collisions, severe machinery damage, fires, explosions, or nuclear leakage may cause serious harm to the marine environment. Current research on nuclear propulsion for merchant ships has shed light on the technical, economic, and sociopolitical challenges to widespread adoption. However, despite the valuable multidisciplinary insights, there remains a deficit in thorough and in-depth research from an international law perspective. [source]

See also: Why nuclear-powered commercial ships are a bad idea | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Of course regulations could be a huge issue. Mainly because big pharma effectively influences legislation and is lobbying for their monetary profit, not for our well-being. The potential of ‘home-brewed’ insulin, would be bad for their business.

Btw I suppose you talking about this article: The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for ‘Biohacked’ Medicines

You’re totally right, direct action for ecological/environmental/etc is not something new.

And thank you for your input. You mention some stuff I did not know and I will gladly look into.

You are totally right saying:

We need to reduce burning fossil fuels

Still, we live in a triple planetary crisis, which includes 3 issues:

• climate crisis
• biodiversity loss
• garbage/pollution

Please, do keep in mind that these issues intersect and this is why they need to be tackled in the same time.

Check out this archived link of the article

The Materson book was easy to find, which is great. The introductory course was a great idea, so I’ll try to find free online lectures and take it from there (I do have some background in math, so differential equations won’t be an issue). I’m pretty sure I won’t get everything, but I’ll get a better grasp. Well, an introductory grasp, that is and I’m fine with it. Thanks again for your input.

Thank you very much for taking the time to wright all the above. A lot has been clarified and you gave me input to further my quest. Btw do you have any recent book/documentary/etc to suggest on the topic for a non-scientist reader?

I will address some of the points you make.

After the Fukushima Daiichi accident, there has been an increasing preference for passive safety features in the nuclear power industry. To my understanding, it’s not that all modern designs include this feature. Not only that, there are many ways to implement it, with different evaluations on their effectiveness.

For the US nuclear waste I could suggest the following article:

Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan? | Scientific American | March 2023

The U.S., which led the way on managing nuclear waste in the 1980s and 1990s, has now fallen to the back of the pack. About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year. These 77 sites are in 35 states and threaten to become de facto permanent disposal facilities.

Finally I believe that

While nuclear champions claim that nuclear energy can work hand-in-hand with renewables, it is becoming increasingly clear that nuclear power acts as a significant hurdle to energy efficiency investments, the roll-out of renewables and fossil fuel phase-out in three spheres: the EU political debate, energy system planning, and decentralisation.

More on this, in the source

I noticed your comment is based on the title and not on any of the arguments in this article. May I suggest to take a look at the article itself? You might change your mind.

It looks like Anark mixed up stuff (around 18 min). CNT was anarcho-syndicalist and they organised in this manner. It’s not that they organised like platformists, just did not call themselves this way, as Anark says.

Edit: In relation to your question, I’m pretty sure that you could find such texts, if you look into Scandinavian relevant studies.

Some other readings would be in relation to Social Ecology

I will not directly reply to your question, but use it as an input to share a couple of thoughts…

The current economic model has infinite growth embedded in it and the planet is finite. In a way, it is expanding in a colonialist manner. Also, it is the predominant one all over the world. This is why we have a triple planetary crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, as well as pollution/waste.

Personally, I don’t think we need an economic model to organise societies. We need a societal organisational model, or many actually, that are based on horizontal decision-making processes, as well as sustainability. How to get from here to there, I suppose it’s whole another topic.

Can’t wait for the Mexico episode!

I am a bit surprised that they “only” have water shortages. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future the water supplies will be proven to be contaminated.

A draft text of the European Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal sets out plans to strengthen the markets for sustainable products and provide greater assistance for heavy industry to cope with energy costs, rather than easing decarbonisation targets.

Prioritising energy cost, instead of decarbonisation sounds alarming to me.