4 ms·

Can't tell if this comment is sarcastic or not

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Zero sarcasm. We've (worldwide government policy) worked against renewables and storage through limited subsidies compared to legacy fuels. That's not to denigrate the efforts of Tesla and solar/wind developers/technology companies; they just haven't received the support they should've compared to the impetus of climate change. EDIT: Innovation is saving us from ourselves! Yay?
- stevenmays 10y ago
  OR just don't subsidize fossil fuels and let them compete.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    It's not just about subsidy. You also have to price in the carbon pollution.
    - dexterdog 10y ago
      On both sides
- kmonsen 10y ago
  If it works it is clearly just luck there there is a cheaper and cleaner energy source available. At some time there will be a threat that will always be cheaper and then we are out of luck.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Eventually we're going to go through some version of the "Great Filter" like wet tofu through a shredder, but this gives me hope that it won't be in our lifetimes.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Unless we already happened to go through that when life magically transitioned from monocellular, simple competitive organisms to multicellular, complex cooperative organisms...
      - Aelinsaar 10y ago
        That seems unlikely, since that transition happened multiple time along multiple pathways, and we observe that just on the single planet we know to have life.
        ethbro 10y ago
        Do you have a source for that? I was specifically speaking about the first eukaryotic cell(s).
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Well, going by history, it's not luck, it's gambling based on historical precedence. Time and again a new technology has come along, often spurred by the problem it solved, just in time to prevent a larger problem. The issue is that people take this for granted, and don't see it for what it is, gambling, and in this case with immensely large negatives on failure, to the point where the mental model of the world many people keep is unable to accurately assess the consequences. That's a dangerous combination.

Zero sarcasm. We've (worldwide government policy) worked against renewables and storage through limited subsidies compared to legacy fuels. That's not to denigrate the efforts of Tesla and solar/wind developers/technology companies; they just haven't received the support they should've compared to the impetus of climate change. EDIT: Innovation is saving us from ourselves! Yay?

stevenmays 10y ago
OR just don't subsidize fossil fuels and let them compete.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  It's not just about subsidy. You also have to price in the carbon pollution.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    On both sides
kmonsen 10y ago
If it works it is clearly just luck there there is a cheaper and cleaner energy source available. At some time there will be a threat that will always be cheaper and then we are out of luck.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Eventually we're going to go through some version of the "Great Filter" like wet tofu through a shredder, but this gives me hope that it won't be in our lifetimes.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Unless we already happened to go through that when life magically transitioned from monocellular, simple competitive organisms to multicellular, complex cooperative organisms...
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      That seems unlikely, since that transition happened multiple time along multiple pathways, and we observe that just on the single planet we know to have life.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        Do you have a source for that? I was specifically speaking about the first eukaryotic cell(s).
- kbenson 10y ago
  Well, going by history, it's not luck, it's gambling based on historical precedence. Time and again a new technology has come along, often spurred by the problem it solved, just in time to prevent a larger problem. The issue is that people take this for granted, and don't see it for what it is, gambling, and in this case with immensely large negatives on failure, to the point where the mental model of the world many people keep is unable to accurately assess the consequences. That's a dangerous combination.