Yeah, I'll admit that this proposal to decrease energy efficiency in our technology is insanity. One major problem with it is that under capitalism polluters do

Yeah, I'll admit that this proposal to decrease energy efficiency in our technology is insanity. One major problem with it is that under capitalism polluters don't pay the true cost of the damage they do and very dangerous technology can be quite affordable. While I understand this proposal as merely listing an option and taking the argument to its logical conclusion, I can see why it could make you not take the rest of the article or website seriously. I found the rest of the article and website very thoughtful and detailed with extensive sources, so I forgive the handful of batty positions taken because I find everything else to be useful data, historical research, and exercises in lateral thinking. It's clear to me that most people do not take the climate crisis seriously enough and seem to believe that we can continue acting exactly as we always have, while mere technological innovation will solve it. Low-Tech Mag generally advances solutions that are/were designed for a world where energy is expensive, and I find that quite compelling because that is the world we now live in, whether people realize it or not.