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.
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
“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