Right, but I don’t see anything in the title or the article itself about 30% being “sufficient.” To the contrary, the article quotes Sarah Brown, energy think tank Ember’s European program director:
The EU is “very much on the way” to its goal of having renewable sources account for 72 per cent of power generation by 2030.
This article is a celebration of a milestone that was crossed for the first time, no mention of 30% being sufficient. You’re assigning meaning that’s not there.
Firstly the article does not say that 30% is sufficient. Secondly, this was always going to be a journey. We don’t get to near 100% without first going through 30%. The article wasn’t saying 30% is enough it was saying that the trajectory is positive.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Who the helll thought a minority of renewables sufficient?
Where are you getting this from?
30% its in the title
Right, but I don’t see anything in the title or the article itself about 30% being “sufficient.” To the contrary, the article quotes Sarah Brown, energy think tank Ember’s European program director:
This article is a celebration of a milestone that was crossed for the first time, no mention of 30% being sufficient. You’re assigning meaning that’s not there.
My point is that they are horrendously failing us because 30% is nowhere near where we need to be
Which wasn’t what the article was claiming, hence your post being a strawman
We should still be very actively condemning this and working to evict these failures from office. We can’t afford this inaction
It is, by definition, not inaction. However I agree that change is too slow.
“sufficient”. Where did you get THAT from?
Their job is to pass legislation that is sufficient to curb the climate catastrophe. This shows that they are woefully incapable of doing their job
Firstly the article does not say that 30% is sufficient. Secondly, this was always going to be a journey. We don’t get to near 100% without first going through 30%. The article wasn’t saying 30% is enough it was saying that the trajectory is positive.
This is a trajectory of mass death. It is not positive
It used to be SFA now it’s 30% number go up is positive
Holy Strawman, Batman!