“We’re hard-wired to want immediate payoffs, even if it’s unwise.” Many of us can hopefully agree on the terrible consequences of climate change. But if that means dramatically changing our quality of life now, to probably, maybe, possibly, have a better quality of life (for our children) in 30-50 years, it becomes an almost impossible equation.

There’s no question that we should all do what we can. But apart from doing less of the bad stuff, we should perhaps be doing more of the good stuff?

Maybe (hopefully) the true long-term solution to fixing negative climate change effects will be to find a way for humanity to innovate out of this crisis. As much as we’re considering how to fly less, and eat less red meat, we could spend time thinking how we can help and fund technology and innovation systems to focus on environmental solutions. Politicians should maybe start diverting much more of public funds to climate change innovation, and, even more importantly, stop supporting and subsidising industries that have a highly negative effect on the climate.

This is what I’m talking about. The investments going into innovation and technology isn’t anywhere near where it should be.

An important perspective (please disregard the dramatic headline). The climate crisis is already here – it’s a sliding scale, and where already on it – and can’t be reversed in the time we have available. What should we do to prepare ourselves?

Keep in mind that earth will survive. This big round slab of rock will live and thrive almost regardless of what we throw at it. Climate change is not an earth problem, it’s a human problem.

And humanity will also survive. The issue at stake is our quality of life. Will all future humans live in Mad Maxian societies, fighting daily for survival, or will we have stable, democratic societies, but just a “warmer” climate?

So far civilisation and quality of life has dramatically improved throughout history. Will climate change and destructive technologies be powerful enough to stop the force of civilisation? Or maybe it always has?

As a bit of background, not least to why we always talk about carbon dioxide (CO2) in this context. The article is quite scientific, despite the comforting headline. Interesting nonetheless.

This is a hugely important message. But planting trees has a delay of more than thirty years before the tree has grown enough (and thus absorbed CO2) to offset the CO2 released by using a grown tree for biofuel. Therefore, we need to protect the growing trees and don’t cut them down in the future. #PROTECT #RESTORE #FUND

Planting trees is great. But not quick enough. We need to innovate and change faster. (But, in anticipation of better solutions, plant trees now!)

The headline says it all. In case you want to learn more.

Now, here’s potentially a very efficient way of absorbing CO2 into plants. We should all help fund these types of initiatives. Maybe we should invest the money saved from eating less meat, in this new technology. Joking aside, it would be a win-win. :)

It’s really a side note to the much more important story of climate change, but this is just sad. Unfortunately I have too many people in my own social feeds that seem to have a problem with Greta. She’s amazing at raising much-needed awareness. We should all be grateful and applaud her tireless efforts.

The last link for today, but potentially the most important. Maybe nuclear reactors (modern; not the Chernobyl kind) is the future of clean energy? If we only dared to innovate (faster) in this space.