4 ms·
I didn’t say it’s wrong. I said it villianizes those fuels. We needed fuels as a society for those 3000 mile flights over the pacific that ships your iPhone he
by DisjointedHunt 5y ago
I didn’t say it’s wrong. I said it villianizes those fuels.
We needed fuels as a society for those 3000 mile flights over the pacific that ships your iPhone here.
Energy “subsidies” are a strategic investment in securing your lifestyle. Just look at Europe right now as they head into winter with sky high natural gas prices. They’d go ahead an strike any deal that secures their supplies so they do t freeze half to death like they did with Russia.
Energy is a strategic asset and simply saying “it gets subsidized” makes it sound like charity.
- raverbashing 5y ago> I said it villianizes those fuels. Oh no, heavily polluting (and not only CO2) energy sources are being villanized... Yes, yes, I am going to villanize Coal, which spews more radioactivity than nuclear. Natural Gas, Gasoline, Oil, are "ok"ish. Not coal.
- Oddskar 5y agoI think you've somehow missed the vital part: our lifestyle is not sustainable. We shouldn't aim to sustain something that simply cannot continue.
- DisjointedHunt 5y agoOh, i didn't miss that part, i think you may have missed my assertion that Energy is crucial to flourish. One may see a society "Flourish" by innovating their way out of an unsustainable path. Everything we consider advanced tech today is built on an economy made possible by vast, cheap and accessible energy sources such as the ones we're dissing. I agree that we need to stop using energy sources in a way that threatens our existence. But i assert that there are massive benefits we have to be thankful for as well.
- iamstupidsimple 5y agoOkay, you first. I'd much rather find a way to maintain people's lifestyles, reduce emissions (and make it even better in the process).
- marcosdumay 5y agoIt's not "you first". There are perfectly good replacements available, we just need governments to invest heavily on replacing them instead of using that money to maintain the status quo.
- Oddskar 5y agoI've already substantially changed my lifestyle to be more sustainable. I don't own a car, I don't eat meat, I consume very little and try to buy used things instead, I repair all my things as much as possible, I try to steer my investments away from anything close to fossil fuels. Now you.
- iamstupidsimple 5y agoI do everything you just listed. But that was by choice, and I know people who won't want to e.g. ever give up eating meat. We have to accommodate these lifestyles (and build tech to make it more sustainable) - people generally don't want to go 'backwards', even if you or I don't perceive that as a problem. Ultimately it's irrelevant, because both of our lifestyles are still heavily carbon negative without offsets. We both own a computer or live in a house I assume? That's why I'm sceptical of the "just live more sustainable" movement.
- pelasaco 5y agoOur lifestyle is sustainable. It just doesn't scale for 10 billion people. The only problem what we have is the amount of people. We can do something against it, but we won't.
- Oddskar 5y agoWhy can't it be both?
- pelasaco 5y agowhat both? Any existing prediction says that the Earth won't support more than 10 billion people. Our life is much more "sustainable" now than before. Yes we still have a lot to do, we will always have, but gosh, we are simply too many. I can't believe in a COPXX if birth control isn't part of the solution.
- viktorcode 5y agoYou don't need coal for those flights. Comparing to gas burning power stations coal is very inefficient in terms of energy produced per per ton of CO2 emitted.