3 ms·

The main social issue is that green energy is better used as marketing than to really do something about the ever rising levels of emissions. After all, most p

by cybrox 4y ago

The main social issue is that green energy is better used as marketing than to really do something about the ever rising levels of emissions. After all, most people don't care to read the actual facts on supposedly new, superior technology, they just endorse it because it's supposed to be green.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Cynical me says it's a big money maker / captialism; green energy projects receive billions in subsidies. At one point you could get "green energy" from your electricity provider at a few cents / kWh extra which they would (supposedly) invest in green energy projects. Then green energy became a marketing term at no extra cost.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Cynical you is completely ignorant to the trillions of dollars oil, coal and gas receive[1]. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill...
- herschel113 4y ago
  In Germany, fossil and nuclear received billions in subsidies over decades too. And still will, even when decomissioned. See: -There would be social subsidies for layed off fossil workers, as there is a massive discussion, while the solar / wind industry almost completely broke down, massive layoffs, after subsidies where cut and china took over (with subsidies there too). It is estimated that more jobs where lost there than actually working in coal (which is the primary discussion about). Forced moving of people / villages to make space for coal mining also holds a money-less cost to the people moved. -Nuclear is a massive field of unknown money holes, as there is up of today still no final reasoning where to put the waste, and it has to be secured for 10k - 1000k years - of course opinions are different there - but there is no reasonable economic plan how to make sure the waste dump is financed for this time less then hundred years ago german society, and the soil to some extend was completely turned over - how include that into risk calculations for 10k+ years to come? So handling the waste will drop out of the private sector more earlier than later, and the state / people will keep it's finacial burden for generations. That is a massive subside, for sure.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> better used as marketing than to really do something about the ever rising levels of emissions. We've known for centuries if not millenia that social and political and habitual change - the only things that would amount to "really doing something about the ever rising levels of emissions" - are hard, really hard, much harder than technological development. Getting people to substantively change their behavior and lifestyle is almost certainly not going to happen, at least not on a timescale that is relevant for climate change.

by cybrox 4y ago

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Cynical me says it's a big money maker / captialism; green energy projects receive billions in subsidies. At one point you could get "green energy" from your electricity provider at a few cents / kWh extra which they would (supposedly) invest in green energy projects. Then green energy became a marketing term at no extra cost.

XorNot 4y ago
Cynical you is completely ignorant to the trillions of dollars oil, coal and gas receive[1]. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill...
herschel113 4y ago
In Germany, fossil and nuclear received billions in subsidies over decades too. And still will, even when decomissioned. See: -There would be social subsidies for layed off fossil workers, as there is a massive discussion, while the solar / wind industry almost completely broke down, massive layoffs, after subsidies where cut and china took over (with subsidies there too). It is estimated that more jobs where lost there than actually working in coal (which is the primary discussion about). Forced moving of people / villages to make space for coal mining also holds a money-less cost to the people moved. -Nuclear is a massive field of unknown money holes, as there is up of today still no final reasoning where to put the waste, and it has to be secured for 10k - 1000k years - of course opinions are different there - but there is no reasonable economic plan how to make sure the waste dump is financed for this time less then hundred years ago german society, and the soil to some extend was completely turned over - how include that into risk calculations for 10k+ years to come? So handling the waste will drop out of the private sector more earlier than later, and the state / people will keep it's finacial burden for generations. That is a massive subside, for sure.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> better used as marketing than to really do something about the ever rising levels of emissions. We've known for centuries if not millenia that social and political and habitual change - the only things that would amount to "really doing something about the ever rising levels of emissions" - are hard, really hard, much harder than technological development. Getting people to substantively change their behavior and lifestyle is almost certainly not going to happen, at least not on a timescale that is relevant for climate change.