There are zero posts of these types - designed to produce complacency and wishful thinking - that can exist without the soothsaying word "could."
In 1976 the stupid antiscience mystic Amory Lovins wrote an insufferably stupid article in
Foreign Affairs which used the word "could" hundreds of times. Almost without exception, not one of the "could" statements was realistic. All of them were faith based.
Here's a classic representative of the quality of these injurious and virulent appeals to ignorance:
If one assumes that by resolute technical fixes and modest social innovation we can double our end-use efficiency by shortly after 2000, then we could be twice as affiuent as now with today's level of energy use, or as affluent as now while using only half the end-use energy we use today. Or we might be somewhere in between—significantly more aflluent (and equitable) than today but with less enduse energy.
The unreferenced blather referred vaguely to "many experts," all of whom apparently were Amory Lovins taking things out of context.
When exactly, do you believe that it was discovered that horseshit and other shit could be converted to methane, although - given especially the egregrious environmental impact of animal "husbandry" - hardly in a sustainable way.
I submit that this post is designed to overlook the vast literature on the conversion of biomass to fuel, or even to consider the
size of a toilet bowl, and the scale of western energy use.