3 ms·

You seem unaware of the huge tax you pay for continued access to petroleum. To a large degree, most of military expense is to maintain that access. Energy from

by ncmncm 4y ago

You seem unaware of the huge tax you pay for continued access to petroleum. To a large degree, most of military expense is to maintain that access. Energy from renewables will be vastly cheaper than humanity has ever experienced since the forests were wiped out, and will fuel a golden age. Provided, of course, that civilization does not collapse first, as you seem to say you would prefer.

prottog 4y ago
You keep claiming that the GP would prefer civilization to collapse. Nothing in their writing suggests that, and your only proof is that they disagree with your assertion that a climate catastrophe is imminent and can only be averted by radical means. Again, that puts you in their category 1. > Energy from renewables will be vastly cheaper than humanity has ever experienced Handwaving "will be" is not good enough for policy.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You have evidently not seen the cost curves of renewable energy sources. They have declined through many orders of magnitude, with no end in sight, similarly to transistors following Moore's Law. "Will be" is exactly what policy needs to be based on. Policy based on "what was" is policy failure. You are very confused about this "category 1". Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity. Action preventing climate catastrophe and collapse of civilization would discomfit only those heavily bought into the petroleum economy.
  - prottog 4y ago
    In one hand you see no end in sight of continued technological advances that have heretofore led to decreasing unit costs in renewable energy, yet on the other hand you see imminent collapse of civilization? Are the two hands joined to the same person? If all-in renewable energy costs including storage do in fact continue to decline at the rate you imply it will, then it looks like we won't have to do anything special to bring about the end of fossil fuels. Prices will do that automatically. > Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity Most every proposed solution I've seen to the imminent climate catastrophe involves making it more expensive to maintain current living standards, maybe with a side order of claiming current living standards are immoral. What are these measures that make substantial headway against climate change without making people poorer? > those heavily bought into the petroleum economy You don't have to own stock in Exxon and Shell to be "bought in" to the petroleum economy. The global economy is the petroleum economy, because in the aggregate every problem facing humanity is an energy problem. I don't think many people particularly care where their energy comes from, as long as it comes to them cheaply and reliably, and so far fossil fuels have other sources beat. I'm not invested either emotionally or financially in seeing the continued success of fossil fuels; I'm invested in maintaining high living standards for myself and raising the living standards of the global poor. I remain skeptical that climate change will collapse civilization anytime soon.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      > "...every proposed solution I've seen to the imminent climate catastrophe involves making it more expensive to maintain current living standards..." False. Every solution involves producing energy radically more cheaply than any ever before, with no chokehold by any gatekeeper. I can see why this would be unattractive to you, if it might interfere with personally raising your own standard of living relative to your neighbors.
phpisthebest 4y ago
It is a complete folly to believe that US Military spending would be reduced in the absence of petrol, in fact I fully expect the world to destabilize more as we move away from petrol which will necessitate the need for increased military expenditures Further outside of Nuclear, energy from renewables is not cheaper not even close, and they have the unfortunate side effect of being non-predictable and subject to nature which petrol and nuclear do not. Wind and Solar are the worst and most expensive at this but as we have seen recently extreme drought may impact Hydro as well. So we go back to the 3 Categories of person, I believe renewables need more time for innovation and are probably about 20+ years out needing not only more advancement on the production side but also needing some massive innovation on energy storage systems in order to effectively replace petrol, and artificially advancing that time table via government fiat will destabilize the world faster and worse than climate change, especially we do in the moronic way governments are today with things like Fertilizer bans, Gas Car bans, and other mandates that ban the use of some products / services In the same way I oppose the government prohibition of drugs, I oppose the government prohibiting farmers from using fertilizer, and I oppose the government prohibiting people from buying gas cars Government prohibition like that rarely work and often produce all kinds of unintended negative consequences

by ncmncm 4y ago

prottog 4y ago

You keep claiming that the GP would prefer civilization to collapse. Nothing in their writing suggests that, and your only proof is that they disagree with your assertion that a climate catastrophe is imminent and can only be averted by radical means. Again, that puts you in their category 1. > Energy from renewables will be vastly cheaper than humanity has ever experienced Handwaving "will be" is not good enough for policy.

ncmncm 4y ago
You have evidently not seen the cost curves of renewable energy sources. They have declined through many orders of magnitude, with no end in sight, similarly to transistors following Moore's Law. "Will be" is exactly what policy needs to be based on. Policy based on "what was" is policy failure. You are very confused about this "category 1". Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity. Action preventing climate catastrophe and collapse of civilization would discomfit only those heavily bought into the petroleum economy.
- prottog 4y ago
  In one hand you see no end in sight of continued technological advances that have heretofore led to decreasing unit costs in renewable energy, yet on the other hand you see imminent collapse of civilization? Are the two hands joined to the same person? If all-in renewable energy costs including storage do in fact continue to decline at the rate you imply it will, then it looks like we won't have to do anything special to bring about the end of fossil fuels. Prices will do that automatically. > Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity Most every proposed solution I've seen to the imminent climate catastrophe involves making it more expensive to maintain current living standards, maybe with a side order of claiming current living standards are immoral. What are these measures that make substantial headway against climate change without making people poorer? > those heavily bought into the petroleum economy You don't have to own stock in Exxon and Shell to be "bought in" to the petroleum economy. The global economy is the petroleum economy, because in the aggregate every problem facing humanity is an energy problem. I don't think many people particularly care where their energy comes from, as long as it comes to them cheaply and reliably, and so far fossil fuels have other sources beat. I'm not invested either emotionally or financially in seeing the continued success of fossil fuels; I'm invested in maintaining high living standards for myself and raising the living standards of the global poor. I remain skeptical that climate change will collapse civilization anytime soon.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    > "...every proposed solution I've seen to the imminent climate catastrophe involves making it more expensive to maintain current living standards..." False. Every solution involves producing energy radically more cheaply than any ever before, with no chokehold by any gatekeeper. I can see why this would be unattractive to you, if it might interfere with personally raising your own standard of living relative to your neighbors.

phpisthebest 4y ago

It is a complete folly to believe that US Military spending would be reduced in the absence of petrol, in fact I fully expect the world to destabilize more as we move away from petrol which will necessitate the need for increased military expenditures Further outside of Nuclear, energy from renewables is not cheaper not even close, and they have the unfortunate side effect of being non-predictable and subject to nature which petrol and nuclear do not. Wind and Solar are the worst and most expensive at this but as we have seen recently extreme drought may impact Hydro as well. So we go back to the 3 Categories of person, I believe renewables need more time for innovation and are probably about 20+ years out needing not only more advancement on the production side but also needing some massive innovation on energy storage systems in order to effectively replace petrol, and artificially advancing that time table via government fiat will destabilize the world faster and worse than climate change, especially we do in the moronic way governments are today with things like Fertilizer bans, Gas Car bans, and other mandates that ban the use of some products / services In the same way I oppose the government prohibition of drugs, I oppose the government prohibiting farmers from using fertilizer, and I oppose the government prohibiting people from buying gas cars Government prohibition like that rarely work and often produce all kinds of unintended negative consequences