Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Germany and India sign €10 billion green development deal as Modi visits Berlin" video.

Given India's climate problems at the moment, green technology is their only choice for survival. Russian oil will soon be an unwanted liability.
8
@LoveTOnutsout no, the oil companies should be required hypothecate oil and gas supplies to the country where they are extracted. The UK has potential new oil and gas fields in the north sea, but if exploited, the oil companies will simply sell the oil and gas on the global market for as much as they can get. This will not solve the UK has supply problem. Better if the fuel supply was used to meet local demand first, before allowing any surplus to be sold on the global market. In an ideal world, this fossil fuel would remain in the ground, to mitigate climate change. As it is, this resource might as well be left in the ground, as its extraction will not reduce UK fuel bills, but simply further increase the over inflated profits of the oil companies.
1
@ronitmahawar1193 India really does not have any choice in going for carbon neutral, but it does not have 10 to 15 years to do it, as is obvious from the current weather conditions in India, and the rest of the world. It is China that wants to supply the world with green energy products, Germany is just one of many who want to win the technological race. Unfortunately, the current solutions leave a lot to be desired. It is highly likely that the world will see a significant number of climate disasters over the next two years, so 15 will be far too long, Large parts of India, are likely to become unobtainable, due to the heat, and it's plays to significant amounts of grain crops will fail due to weather damage. The world is about to get a lesson in mathematics with an emphasis on exponential, as in exponential increase in extreme weather events.
1
@brakejoshep all countries will suffer from climate change, but because of India's geography and economy, it is likely to suffer sooner and greater than some other countries at more temperate latitudes.
1
@ronitmahawar1193 you are assuming that big countries have a choice. In fact, no one has a choice, the feedback mechnisim will force net zero, like it or not. If the world does not go net zero soon, the economies of the world will be so badly damaged by climate related disasters that it will cease to function, and thus will not be able burn fossil fuels. This is not the way anyone wants to get to carbon zero, as it will involve the breakdown of global civilisation. What most fail to understand is the effect of exponential change In the climate, as negative feedback becomes positive. The effects of global warming has the potential of being far worse than any war. So far nature has been nudging us to make the necessary changes, this incentive to change will become more intense, the more we ignore it. It is tempting to anthropomorphize this system response, as in the Gaia philosophy, but it is purely automatic. You might ask how climate change is going to force a reduction in fossil fuel use. There are many scenarios, but a common feature is a cascade failure effect. Mid latitude heat waves, resulting in crop failures producing famine, droughts. Floods resulting from sea level rise and redistribution of rainfall patterns. Wild fires and massive storm damage to infrastructure even at more polar latitudes. Mass migration, resulting in a loss of industrial workers. Disruption to sanitation, resulting in epidemic diseases, and finally the collapse of human population size. This is the road we are rolling on, and it is increasingly downhill from now on.
1