In recent years we have heard a lot of noise on this subject; first it was global warming, then it became climate change and slowly turned into a climate crisis.

What, by nature, will cause catastrophic ecosystem effects and disruption in almost every region of the world?

So what can we really do about it? Let’s stop consuming so much; are we radically changing the way of life to which we are so adapted?

Are we no longer supposed to use means of production and transport, or manufacture goods or run industries?

So what about the economic chaos, because the GDP is mainly driven by consumption. And who is willing to give up what is the riddle.

The great climate talk is on the table, but with the complexities, the constant increase and ever increasing disinformation, we are living in a global panic, especially among the younger generation, who are doubting their future on the planet.

Every now and then we have a Copenhagen convention to discuss and set goals with almost all world leaders pledging to achieve the goals set, most of which are not mandatory but voluntary.

We barely know the cost, and setting 200 goals is more like a never-ending to-do list. And even if we are successful, what the consequences and adjustments are for us is unclear.

As the global transition to a post-fossil society as we dream of today progresses, there will be disruptions in the balance of the economy and the distribution of wealth.

However, the specifically targeted policy had been successful in the past, for example, we no longer hear about the ozone layer because the production and use of culprit CFCs has been banned.

Recently, the COP26 climate summit was held with the participation and commitment of almost all nations with the common goal of slowing the global temperature rise, which would have disastrous effects for the whole world.

Ahead of the summit, scientists announced that to achieve this goal, the goal was to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

While the contribution of the climate crisis is largely on the part of industrial nations, the effects are borne by everyone equally, so one cannot exclude oneself from the issue.

At the end of the Glasgow meeting, only 0.3 degrees Celsius less warming can be achieved by the end of 2020. To perceive the road future, we must first understand the present. Today, fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – account for 79% of global energy production.

Is the climate crisis a solvable problem? One of the main topics of discussion is the use of coal and fossil fuels, which are the source of most carbon emissions (especially Isotop 13) which is the main culprit in the atmosphere. So how do you deal with it without any repercussions?

Planting trees is not the only solution or covering the Sahara with solar panels. Historically, data shows there are more trees in major parts of the world than ever before and more use of clean renewable energy sources than ever before, but the urgency of the situation requires an urgent change in resources. fossil and carbon fuels.

Advances in biotechnology and nuclear power are happening, which have their own drawbacks, but the alternatives are apocalyptic.

Renewable energy prices have fallen much faster than the industry expected, and they are quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, according to a new analysis.

Today, the primary concern for the climate for many is psychological with little or no choice in the hands of individuals but panic and anxiety induced by the fear that they may do little or nothing.

One school of thought is that the richer people get, the more sustainable and environmentally friendly the choices are because they can afford it and act upon their choices.

So, the distribution of wealth and the enrichment of people may sound like a very funny idea, but the ripple effects are explored by many statistics on directly and indirectly related topics and wealth is not just about money. money, but a sense of security and means for people to live and solve problems.

When the average societal expenditure is higher, consumption increases and the GDP often reflects this as a parameter of success for a country’s economy.

For us, the next steps with high ripple effect bandwidth are in two words: Energy and Biotech. More funding is needed for clean energy development and technological advancement as we are limited by our biological weapons to fight the crisis.

Some of its wonders have been seen in European countries as they seem to be at the forefront of clean energy, but sustainability has yet to be achieved and financial feasibility is still a concern for countries. developing, but statistics show very positive data. on the lower cost of financing clean energy projects and, simultaneously, the price to end users follows a downward trend.

Globally, more than 800 GW of existing coal-fired electricity is more expensive than new solar PV or onshore wind projects commissioned in 2021.

With the ever increasing rate of fossil fuels and the decreasing price range of clean energy, some possibilities, but a reliable and sustainable source with a nominal operating cost is the stage that we have yet to reach.

As the global transition to a post-fossil society as we dream of today progresses, there will be disruptions in the balance of the economy and the distribution of wealth.

Well, one of the direct logics applied is that the cost of energy will go into financing new, clean energy that will ultimately replace fossil fuel and the cost savings on operating expenses decline as energy becomes cheaper or even better free and profit increases. the standard of living of society and make them more independent and competent.

Renewable energy prices have fallen much faster than the industry expected, and they are quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, according to a new analysis.

A rapid switch to “green” energy without emissions could save billions of dollars in energy costs while helping to fight climate change.

As funding for clean energy and technology projects increases, the cost of funding is expected to fall on a downward trend.

Globally, more than 800 GW of existing coal-fired electricity is more expensive than new solar PV or onshore wind projects commissioned in 2021.

The removal of these plants would reduce electricity production costs by up to USD 32.3 billion per year and avoid around 3 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, which corresponds to 9% of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2020 or 20% of the emissions reduction needed by 2030 for a 1.5 ° C climate trajectory described in IRENA’s World Energy Transitions Outlook.