> ...this is how its going to have to continue if we still want to be living on earth in 50 years Climate change is a cluster-f-bomb that will evolve into blat

> ...this is how its going to have to continue if we still want to be living on earth in 50 years Climate change is a cluster-f-bomb that will evolve into blatant seriousness over tens of decades. It won't directly ruin civilization, either, so if we avoid any major wars based on scarcity or refugee crises we're likely just looking at a major remodeling of humanities day-to-day and some intense population events moreso than annihilation. From that perspective, I'm gonna say "kiiiiiiiinda". It's not like what Apple is doing is _bad_, but let's get real: they're stating above the fold that their green investments are no solution for their massive 24/7 computing needs. They're investing in fungable offsets, but the underlying energy production is still carbon intensive. Their approach doesn't cover their own needs, and can't scale to any industrially challenging or civilization-scale needs. We want to transition a lot of industry over to clean electrical processes that require more energy and we want to lift a few Billion out of poverty, too... If we look at total energy usage on this planet and future demands we see that funging some minor percentage of electricity production (not energy!), is just moving around some lipstick on a pig and making sure the brand is "eco friendly"... Fundamentally we need to be looking at technologies that eliminate the need for the coal plant to keep the datacenter open, the peaker gas plants that handle bursty loads, and for burning oil to get the workers/supplies in and out of the building. We don't need electrical tech that's "green" on top of existing infrastructure, we need green tech that displaces and eliminates existing energy infrastructure. Bluntly, if you care about that 50 year picture: the answer is fission, with a vague and slight possibility of fusion (maybe).