I’m not an egoist anarchist, but the other answer to your question is wrong and I don’t want it to be standing there without correction. Egoism in an anarchist context goes back to “The Ego and His own” by Max Stirner, a German philosopher. He was not an anarchist, but has been and is still very influential on the movement.

Here’s his works on the anarchist library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/max-stirner

I haven’t read it myself yet, but read some short summaries. Afaik he wants everyone to acknowledge that we’re basically working in our own self-interest all of the time BUT that this requires cooperation and that helping others without immediate material benefit can be part of our self-interest, e.g. because it makes us feel good or because it builds relationships that might be beneficial later.

Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves?

Sadly, that’s not the whole story. I don’t share all of his takes on how to move forward (he’s a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0

this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.

Sadly, you’re also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I don’t know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.

I would like to avoid adding a lot of examples to keep it short and to the point. Otherwise no one reads it.

Would it be possible to have the CoC short but with links to explicitely non-exhaustive examples for what is meant by each point?

Really gives me extra hope that this isn’t another vaporware battery technology.

I’ll take it with a grain of salt:

• From the summary I didn’t see if the energy density is a cell level value or a system level value. We have to compare system level energy densities.
• Also energy density isn’t the only thing lithium ion batteries are good at. Firstly, if the cell at its core is a reversible fuel cell with nafion membrane, the dynamics of the cell will be comparable to PEM fuel cells. Lithium-ion batteries can deliver full power instantly without an issue. With PEM fuel cells you have to be more careful: it’s possible to flood the membrane with water or dry it up if you change power too quickly, which is why their response time (time from set point change to actual delivery of full power) is usually limited to about one minute. Secondly, how good or bad is the calendric and cyclic aging and recyclability of the new battery? Lithium-ion has come a long way concerning lifetime - recyclability not yet, sadly.
• With Sodium-ion batteries there’s another, more mature and similarly environmentally-friendly technology already on the market. And while I wouldn’t have thought that it made sense, chinese manufacturer CATL already has built Sodium-ion batteries for cars, and (sadly) that’s the far more important market for batteries compared to stationary ones.

but I rarely hear anyone talking about banning planes.

Then do it, but in your own post.

I mean that literally, it would be good to ban private planes and cut down usage of other airplanes drastically. However using that to discredit people talking about other drivers of climate change is just plain whataboutism and sabotaging the movement.

Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.

That’s the only thing you’re getting wrong here, but it’s a very crucial point. Even in the best democracies on earth, political power does not come from the people as a whole, it is not distributed equally. It’s kind of difficult to prove or quantify but this study succeeded for the US: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

They showed that it’s organized groups who actually influence politics. It’s obvious that lobbyists of corporations and industry associations will be among them, but it also includes unions, climate lobby groups, etc. But corporate lobby groups often have similar interests whereas most non-corporate groups only talk about very few issues, making them less visible (the paper suggests that they’ll be impactful if they all speak out in favor of the same things). Furthermore, who is actually part of such groups? It’ll be the well-off people who don’t have to work two or three jobs to survive. Now it’s common knowledge that the US is far from being the best democracy on earth, but I have a feeling that the EU where some of the better democracies are located works very similarly.

Therefore it’s neither correct nor fair or helpful to blame everyone. The elites need to be held accountable, or even better, be abolished.