3 ms·
With full respect intended, I have to disagree. We already have several options available to massively curtail our emissions (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal).
by plaguepilled 5y ago
With full respect intended, I have to disagree.
We already have several options available to massively curtail our emissions (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). While yes new technology would make this transition even faster, a major, MAJOR roadblock is lobbying by fossil fuel industries and related corporate interests.
In terms of the technological discussion though, I am excited by the recent work done in molten salt cathode batteries for scale use (https://interestingengineering.com/molten-salt-12-week-battery https://interestingengineering.com/molten-salt-12-week-batte...).
- api 5y agoI don't think we disagree at all. What I'm saying is that the shame-and-austerity framing plays right into the hands of fossil fuel industry propaganda. One of the most insidious bits of fossil fuel propaganda I've seen recently is this whole "moral case for fossil fuels" schtick. They're pointing out that fossil fuels have lifted billions out of poverty, which is technically true, and then using that combined with the "moral panic" framing of the green movement to argue that greens want to push those billions back into poverty. Personally I think we have historically framed environmental issues as moral because we (meaning the USA) are a culture with puritan roots and the whole protestant moral panic framing is baked into our cultural DNA. It's how we often approach problems, especially collective or tragedy of the commons problems. We approach them by deploying shame to try to change behavior. It very often backfires like it is here, or like it does when we try to shame teenagers out of having sex.