14 ms·
Your comment has an air to it which makes you sound no different than the same dogmatists you seek to discredit. Framing the raw economics of renewables as sup
by algoatecorn 4y ago
Your comment has an air to it which makes you sound no different than the same dogmatists you seek to discredit.
Framing the raw economics of renewables as superior to fossil fuels is wrong in many ways, mainly due to the narrowmindedness of viewing it through the lens of just energy. Do your views encompass the the vast network of global production tied to fossil fuel derived goods and processes?
No one should view it as a competition between fossil fuels and renewables. Phasing out fossil fuels has huge implications beyond energy production and if you're not at least attempting to model the "raw economics" to include things like plastics, fertilizers, etc., you're doing a disservice to achieving a sustainable future.
- dv_dt 4y agoThe fossil fuel industry certainly sees it as a competition, and they're playing for a very different goal of preserving profits at pretty much any cost - including broad social costs. Trying to play that off as "no competition between fossil fuels and renewables" seems very naive at best. I do think it is an interesting question on "phaseout" of fossil fuels as a carbon emitting energy consumable, vs a feedstock for various chemical processes, like fertilizer production. But the fossil fuel industry very much does not want to go from a centralized role in energy vs a smaller role in chem feedstocks.