3 ms·
I'm certainly not advocating that we pollute for fun. But if the choice is between polluting massively with fossil fuels or having people go cold and starve bec
by prottog 4y ago
I'm certainly not advocating that we pollute for fun. But if the choice is between polluting massively with fossil fuels or having people go cold and starve because there's not enough energy to produce fertilizer and heat people's homes, I'm saying it's downright immoral to prevent the former and cause the latter.
I'm not against green energy! By all means, build as many wind turbines and solar panels as we can. We need abundant, cheap, and ideally pollution-free energy; but until we can get there, burn as much fossil fuels as we need to alleviate human suffering and uplift the global poor.
- soared 4y ago> But if the choice is between polluting massively with fossil fuels or having people go cold and starve These are definitely not the choices and using those a basis for logic leads to misguided opinions
- concordDance 4y agoA surprisingly large number of people are wanting us to burn zero fossil fuels in 2035. I don't think they know much about fertiliser production though... (other than that they dislike it and we should use natural farming)
- pydry 4y ago2035 is the goal for carbon free electricity only.