3 ms·
> 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".
by 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 agoThe 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.