3 ms·
> They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. i'm not aware of any
by leeoniya 9y ago
> They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment.
i'm not aware of any left-leaning readers who want renewables to succeed because of their lower costs. the point is to reduce environmental impact and externalities that the fossil fuel industry simply chooses to ignore. even if the burden of upfront cost must be borne by taxpayers, it's no different than simply taking into account all factors of power generation using existing infrastructure and methods.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 9y agoEven as someone who is very left wing on the environment, it's hard for me to overlook how much misinformation exists on the issue from left-leaning media. This article is a great example: the central implication is that renewable energy is so cheap and plentiful, that it's driving energy prices negative!
- kelnos 9y agoYou shouldn't overlook it; you should absolutely call out news sources when they're being intellectually dishonest. But that doesn't change the fact that if we don't transition to renewable energy, we will wreck the planet, at least wrt humans surviving on it. The cost doesn't really matter when you consider that aspect.
- YawningAngel 9y agoWill we? Seems like we could use fission plants just fine if we wanted to.
- kelnos 9y agoTwo issues with that: 1) We still haven't solved the nuclear waste disposal issue. 2) Even if fears around #1 are overblown, "if we wanted to" is the rub: there's very little political or public will to move any meaningful amount of energy production to nuclear, and in some places in the world, countries are actually retiring nuclear plants as the age and replacing them with something else.