3 ms·

Sure, in 1850 when we had no other sources of power that would be a good argument. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we as a species are hurtling towards vol

Sure, in 1850 when we had no other sources of power that would be a good argument. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we as a species are hurtling towards voluntary extinction because some people are just profiting too much from oil. Encouraging those most likely to face the consequences of global warming to burn more oil isn’t just insane, it’s downright evil.

ThomPete 8y ago
It's nothing as evil as asking them not to and just let them die which is what you are basically suggesting. Unless you have an actual solution to their situation you have nothing but a misunderstood idea of your own morals.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Do not put words in my mouth. I never said “do nothing and die”. What I said was “stop burning oil”.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    And I didn't encourage anything. I said that unless you have an actual alternative you have nothing of use to poor countries and their current citizens.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - torpfactory 8y ago
      The alternative is to skip building out fossil fuel burning infrastructure and instead build renewable infrastructure with storage. And don't give some bullshit argument about cost. 1 - It's often the cheapest form of electricity to generate and 2 - continuing to burn fossil fuels has a cost we must include in future plans. 1 - https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... 2 - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_High_Res.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15...
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        This is exactly the kind of superficial thinking that is, unfortunately, dominating this debate. So what do you expect the poor countries to do while they wait for that to be within their reach? Even in the developed countries this is 1) not feasible 2) not being done 3) not even close to being financially responsible 4) mostly being driven by nations NOT the market and those nations are going to soon run out of money to spend on this. You offer nothing but virtue signaling.

ThomPete 8y ago

It's nothing as evil as asking them not to and just let them die which is what you are basically suggesting. Unless you have an actual solution to their situation you have nothing but a misunderstood idea of your own morals.

village-idiot 8y ago
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said “do nothing and die”. What I said was “stop burning oil”.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  And I didn't encourage anything. I said that unless you have an actual alternative you have nothing of use to poor countries and their current citizens.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - torpfactory 8y ago
    The alternative is to skip building out fossil fuel burning infrastructure and instead build renewable infrastructure with storage. And don't give some bullshit argument about cost. 1 - It's often the cheapest form of electricity to generate and 2 - continuing to burn fossil fuels has a cost we must include in future plans. 1 - https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... 2 - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_High_Res.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15...
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      This is exactly the kind of superficial thinking that is, unfortunately, dominating this debate. So what do you expect the poor countries to do while they wait for that to be within their reach? Even in the developed countries this is 1) not feasible 2) not being done 3) not even close to being financially responsible 4) mostly being driven by nations NOT the market and those nations are going to soon run out of money to spend on this. You offer nothing but virtue signaling.