4 ms·

This article is a bit confused. It pits the left and right middle classes against each other and also against the oligarchy, and then brings up how Trump stands

This article is a bit confused. It pits the left and right middle classes against each other and also against the oligarchy, and then brings up how Trump stands against the left middle class without mentioning how much he represents and supports the oligarchy that systematically takes advantage of both the right and the left. It also tries to cast the left middle class as allies of the oligarchy by bringing populist green energy fearmongering, without mentioning that it is in fact fossil fuels that a) enrich and entrench the oligarchy, and b) reinforce centralized infrastructure tendencies over distributed ones. Lots of communities have space for renewable energy generation on-site; almost no communities could produce their own fossil fuels. Finally, scarcity drives most of the forces that oligarchs benefit from, so naturally the oligarchy wants us to stay on fossil fuels. Renewables are the populist, conservative solution that’s better for families and communities than for corporations, but the mega-rich right-wing fossil fuel magnates have fooled their poorer and less-educated right-wing compatriots into thinking otherwise.

philwelch 7y ago
It’s interesting the way you equate fossil fuels with scarcity and renewable energy with abundance, when renewables are still a tiny minority of the world energy supply. In reality, it’s fossil fuels that allow for energy abundance, while the movement to transition to renewables is accompanied by energy austerity: less driving, less air travel, less meat consumption.
- notduncansmith 7y ago
  Our fossil-fuel-backed energy “abundance” is the same as the mortgage-backed financial “abundance” we had in 2007 and the international-kidnapping-backed labor “abundance” of pre-Civil-War America. It’s a loan the oligarchy takes out with no intent to pay it back. The alternative is not “austerity”, just living within one’s means and not externalizing one’s own cost of living.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    That’s a fair argument to make, it’s just completely different from the original argument you were making.
anigbrowl 7y ago
It's Quillette, after all. That's what they're there for.

philwelch 7y ago

It’s interesting the way you equate fossil fuels with scarcity and renewable energy with abundance, when renewables are still a tiny minority of the world energy supply. In reality, it’s fossil fuels that allow for energy abundance, while the movement to transition to renewables is accompanied by energy austerity: less driving, less air travel, less meat consumption.

notduncansmith 7y ago
Our fossil-fuel-backed energy “abundance” is the same as the mortgage-backed financial “abundance” we had in 2007 and the international-kidnapping-backed labor “abundance” of pre-Civil-War America. It’s a loan the oligarchy takes out with no intent to pay it back. The alternative is not “austerity”, just living within one’s means and not externalizing one’s own cost of living.
- philwelch 7y ago
  That’s a fair argument to make, it’s just completely different from the original argument you were making.

anigbrowl 7y ago

It's Quillette, after all. That's what they're there for.