Will we/can we save the planet?

So many warnings about the climate changes overwhelming the planet, yet still it is difficult to have ay confidence that the world's govenments will do nearly enough to reduce carbon emissions rapidly and to introduce new forms of energy supply to keep this creaking globe working, functioning and survving, and, hopefully, flourishing. Saudi Arabia, the Big Daddy of oil suppliers, has pledged to move to zero carbon emissions - by 2060. That's THIRTY-NINE years away. By then Bangladesh and the Maldives could be covered over in seawater. Why is there still no real sense of urgency even though every climatologist and David Attenborough are telling us if we don't act NOW it will be too late. In some respects it's already too late. The answer is simple. It's all about money and personal sacrifice. It's going to cost several trillion-dollar fortunes to wean countries off traditional energy supplies - oil and natural gas - and people everywhere who can afford it will have to play their part in changing their ways and going carbon-neutral, or as neutral as possible. But there is no perfect solution to any of the challenges and for that reason a lot of people - probably most people - will shrug their shoulders and say it can't be done, or not yet, and will wait before acting. Like electric cars. All fine if you can afford them which most people can't but even e-cars are not idea lfor saving the planet. Why? Because they rely on batteries which are not eco-friendly and when they run out they will have to be scrapped, and how do you scrap toxic batteries without damaging the environment? And then there's gas boilers. I've already blogged about the ridiculous obstacles to installing heat pumps. But what is to happen to all the old gas boilers? They will have to be scrapped - a huge and environmentally unfriendly prospect. When they first thought up nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered submarines, experts said it was wonderful and would last for ever. Except nuclear power creates nuclear waste, and nuclear submarines don't go on ad infinitum. At some point the nuclear waste and the ageing nuclear reactors have to be stored safely. It can't just all be thrown away on a tip. Plutonium remains radioactive for at least 25,000 years for example. There has been talk for decades about storing unwanted nuclear stuff into glass constructions and burying it all under granite rock. But as far as I know nothing like that has ever been built because no one wants a nuclear waste dump, even below ground, anywhere near their homes. And what if water somehow seeps into the granite Fort Knox and radioactive liquid gets into the water supply? So as we dump more and more of our old-style bad-for-the-environment stuff, where the hell is it all going to go? Nevertheless, despite all these challenges, it's now that the big decisions have to be taken and I really don't think governments anywhere on the planet are seriously getting to grips with it. Will we/can save the planet? Not at the rate we are going at the moment.