6 ms·
For the many people who are criticizing the article for being pro-war: the article is simply claiming that the energy war between Russia and the West is increas
by colonCapitalDee 4y ago
For the many people who are criticizing the article for being pro-war: the article is simply claiming that the energy war between Russia and the West is increasing global prices for fossil fuels and is spurring concerns over energy security. Increased prices for fossil fuels makes green energy more cost competitive and concerns over energy security drive nations to find alternative energy sources. Increases in the cost competitiveness of green energy and the search of nations for new energy sources has increased private and public investment in green energy, speeding up the energy transition.
This simple chain of cause and effect is oversimplified, which is why there's a whole article written about it.
At no point does the article claim "war is good because it's spurring green energy spending", or "we should have more wars to spend more on green energy", or "war has downsides, but upsides like increased green energy spending are worth it".
If you think that any statements that address the positive externalities of war simply shouldn't be uttered (because they glorify war, or encourage war, or whatever), then you're an idiot who thinks everyone else is an idiot.
- haswell 4y agoAssuming one believes your argument, a more charitable conclusion is that some people may be misguided, and a reexamination of their stance may be warranted. Calling people idiots isn’t going to change people’s minds, and people hold bad opinions about things all the time for reasons that aren’t as simplistic as “they’re an idiot”.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoI think the disparagement is warranted. Not because it will be effective. But because it helps focus attention away from unproductive comments.
- colonCapitalDee 4y agoIdiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible are idiots, and I have zero interest in trying to change their minds (at least over the internet). As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.
- krageon 4y agoYou say it is not free speech absolutism, but in the same paragraph you say that any sort of limitation of speech or belief that some thoughts are simply bad is something only idiots want or have. It doesn't read as a well-rounded belief that came about from measured, reasonable thinking. It just reads as if you're angry.
- colonCapitalDee 4y agoYou failed to understand my comment and then made an ad hominem attack, how impressive
- krageon 4y agoHow is asserting that you're angry an ad hominem attack? Has it somehow become a crime to have emotions, or to express them instead of pure cold logic? There was no ad hominem.
- mihaic 4y agoDid you maybe skim the comment and not actually read it? My interpretation was that not letting people even voice some state-of-the-world opinions is an excessive speach limitation. I do read the anger though, but I feel it's not the destructive kind, more the disappointed at the state of public discourse.
- kragen 4y agoi have no relationship to the parent poster, who has unfortunately chosen a name confusingly similar to my own
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 4y agoThere's an entire subsection of politics that's appeared, made entirely from the worst possible misreadings of sensible boring policy wonkery. The most recent example is people going bananas about "15-minute cities", as if being able to walk to the shops is some sort of communist plot.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoPeoples lifelihood is under attack, by the ever openening wage gap, by ai replacing jobs and the elites just ignoring it, over even worse propelling the change. Any wounded animal crawls to safety and snarls at anything coming close. Its idiotic, but understandable, actually for this sort of prolonged hostility by the environment, the resistance has been quite gentle.
- corbulo 4y agoPeople aren't afraid of the convenience. The 15 minute cities project comes with movement restrictions (in the name of climate) a la China in some areas like Oxford, I recall heated debate over that part.
- pydry 4y ago>At no point does the article claim "war is good because it's spurring green energy spending" Instead it pretends it has significant upsides that are based upon a spurious theory. Realistically renewables require an intense amount of capital that this war has suddenly made a lot more expensive. This will hamper green energy investment - older plants will be kept running for longer, new green energy plants won't get built. This will not be good for green energy. The article is just a slightly less crass form of war cheerleading that they probably hope will age better than their 2003 Iraq war cheerleading.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> spurious evidence Why are IEA forecasts spurious? > less crass form of war cheerleading Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful? This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.
- pydry 4y ago>Why are IEA forecasts spurious? What do they have to do with the war? Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables. However, since they are capital intense and war made capital expensive... that'll be a drag on investment, won't it? >Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration It would be better if they were honest about the cause. >This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN. If you say so.