> It is a natural byproduct of increasing prosperity. Lots of other people have pointed out flaws in your reasoning and how privileged your perspective is. I j

> It is a natural byproduct of increasing prosperity. Lots of other people have pointed out flaws in your reasoning and how privileged your perspective is. I just wanted to add to the dogpile discussion by pointing out this is simply absurd. We have LONG since converted the first world to a primarily electric society, and as science advances an electric society becomes ever cheaper and more imaginable. Our fascination with fossil fuel in all things is much more about the control offered to people who hold lands rich in the energy resources we use. We found the use of our friend fire useful early on for portably moving the energy necessary to make mechanical energy, but as time has gone on we've found many viable ways to replace its use. Solar power has been cost effective near the equator since before anyone talking here was born, Shuman worked out the details of a reflection-powered low pressure steam turbine with excellent properties before 1920. You can build a shockingly effective solar engine in your local techshop, if your goal is to make mechanical energy and you aren't too far off the equator. That's 100 year old technology! This idea that a carbon liberation is the norm of industrialization is a fiction sold to you by industrialists who have a scarce resource. Time and time again, we've already shown that industrialization progresses towards REDUCING our notion of waste and INCREASING efficiency, and yet the social discourse is about the inevitability of environmental impact and "recouping R&D costs."