So called "renewable energy" did nothing to prevent this outcome, is doing nothing to address this outcome, and despite the current utilization of "should" and "could" rhetoric which varies not a whit from that used in the 1980's, will not do anything to address climate change.
That climate change is occurring is not the fault of renewable energy.
More to the point, renewable energy is reducing CO2 emissions. Not enough and not without side effects. Just because that reduction is not 100% or not all of what could be desired doesn't make it 100% useless, doesn't mean that the effort has "done nothing". Every new 100 MWatt renewables installation means a new 100 MWatt fossil fuel plant doesn't have to start spewing CO2. Put it all together and there is a measurable positive impact.
Further, whether or not renewables would be sufficient to reduce CO2 as much as is needed, doesn't mean they have zero role to play. That they are not your preferred approach doesn't mean we should reject them entirely, even if we were to in the main implement your preferred approach. I don't know why you have adopted all-or-nothing language here. One can rail against renewables with the claim that another approach is better, and it might be, but in dealing with social and political realities we have to do what can be accomplished.
If the masses are ignorant, educate them and lead them. Exigencies have to be handled with what is available, with the current situation, not the idealistic dream of everyone intelligent and fully educated.
There is no instant solution to climate change.
There is no
single solution.
There is no solution without side effects.
There is no
all-or-nothing magic bullet.
There is no
perfect set of solutions.
Many avenues, such as reduction, efficiency, renewables and nuclear need to be deployed, with others (perhaps fusion among them) being extended and deployed as innovation and ingenuity yield results.
= new reply since forum marked as read