It is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. That's also not to say it isn't necessarily unfair. I tend to see it like progression in a gam

It is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. That's also not to say it isn't necessarily unfair. I tend to see it like progression in a game's tech tree, in some sense the prior steps (oil) were needed to get to a point where we can actually create energy in a clean and renewable way. In the future, there will likely be a tipping point where the energy created from clean and renewable sources can be used to help create new sources, but it likely wouldn't have been possible without the oil stepping stone. In an ideal and non-hypocritical scenario, the advancements in energy production would be shared to avoid the dirty oil intermediary step, but while there is still scarcity and separate national entities, there will still be hoarding and greed. A great implementation of this is type of thinking is Morocco's solar plant in the Sahara [0]. Though I don't think this would have happened if it wasn't also thought to be a good investment, and urging a bad investment that you're not willing to participate in would definitely be hypocritical. [0]:http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/04/465568055/morocco-unveils-a-massive-solar-power-plant-in-the-sahara http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/04/465568055/...