4 ms·
Mostly correct. But the problem is that these are literally the points of Green proponents/Anti-climate-change people. They have a religious, purist, orthodox
by xyzzy21 5y ago
Mostly correct. But the problem is that these are literally the points of Green proponents/Anti-climate-change people. They have a religious, purist, orthodox attitude - ZERO fossil fuels ASAP!
Only a portfolio of all sources can enable a transition and time required to debug all the problems with the new technology. But Green Absolutism has no room for that. The fact is: We Will be using fossil fuels in the next 50-100 years still. It may become smaller or more limited but it will NOT be zero. If you try to force the issue to absolutely, we will end up with NOTHING - either from Green or from Fossil because the system will break. Just like supply chains have broken recently, fossil fuels are just as deeply intertwined into the supply chain network FOR EVERYTHING that is post-1800 technology. It's like a jenga pile or pick-up-stix situation.
- kergonath 5y agoZero fossil fuels needed to happen 20 years ago. ASAP won't be good enough. One argument can be made to keep around existing gas-powered plants to absorb demand peaks, but building coal or gas plants right now is lunacy. Nuclear might or might not be in the future, but fossil fuels certainly need to die much quicker than they do.
- lamontcg 5y agoNobody makes that argument, this is what an actual strawman argument looks like.