4 ms·

Pointing to a vague they makes for a very uninformative comment. I believe most people see a future where civilization progresses. There is just somewhat of a c

Pointing to a vague they makes for a very uninformative comment. I believe most people see a future where civilization progresses. There is just somewhat of a consensus, among left leaning people and groups of scientists, that we need to dial back energy usage short term, until the sources of that energy are moved away from fossil fuels. I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda. I don't even think the small fraction of extremists who want everyone living on an organic commune are anti-civilization.

tomp 5y ago
> I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda. Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Very slippery slope. Expect a lot of people to oppose it (me included). Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites (same as with the pandemic).
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Another necessary short term sacrifice to lessen the risk to society? > Very slippery slope I don't know where you're scared "increase effeciency" or "waste less" will go. It's perfectly fine to have gripes with how that gets accomplished. "Fuel taxes are bad because X", "cap and trade would be terrible" or "Windmills suck", I get, "using less energy is bad", I do not get. > Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites I mean, the most common proposal is taxes on consumption to fund clean energy and/or cleanup. Not really a "different rules" situation in my mind.
- corney91 5y ago
  The imperative is reducing carbon output. Reducing usage is the simplest, most reliable way of doing that so I find it hard to blame people who push that approach. On the other hand, if anyone wants to use more energy the onus is on them to explain how we can do that within our carbon budget, when we're not even living within our budget currently.
belorn 5y ago
From a cost perspective, would dialing back on energy usage cost us more than moving to more expensive ways to generate energy? The primary reason why fossil fuel is the energy source of choice is the cost savings compared to more expensive alternatives. A lot can be built within a very short time frame if either A) money where no issue, or B) people were pressured enough to prioritize the climate over other more economical prioritizes.

tomp 5y ago

> I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda. Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Very slippery slope. Expect a lot of people to oppose it (me included). Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites (same as with the pandemic).

BobbyJo 5y ago
> Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Another necessary short term sacrifice to lessen the risk to society? > Very slippery slope I don't know where you're scared "increase effeciency" or "waste less" will go. It's perfectly fine to have gripes with how that gets accomplished. "Fuel taxes are bad because X", "cap and trade would be terrible" or "Windmills suck", I get, "using less energy is bad", I do not get. > Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites I mean, the most common proposal is taxes on consumption to fund clean energy and/or cleanup. Not really a "different rules" situation in my mind.
corney91 5y ago
The imperative is reducing carbon output. Reducing usage is the simplest, most reliable way of doing that so I find it hard to blame people who push that approach. On the other hand, if anyone wants to use more energy the onus is on them to explain how we can do that within our carbon budget, when we're not even living within our budget currently.

belorn 5y ago

From a cost perspective, would dialing back on energy usage cost us more than moving to more expensive ways to generate energy? The primary reason why fossil fuel is the energy source of choice is the cost savings compared to more expensive alternatives. A lot can be built within a very short time frame if either A) money where no issue, or B) people were pressured enough to prioritize the climate over other more economical prioritizes.