4 ms·
You proved yourself to be low information on at least one point (the waste problem). Your other points may be “true” but in a rather hollow way. We’re all subs
by creato 4y ago
You proved yourself to be low information on at least one point (the waste problem).
Your other points may be “true” but in a rather hollow way. We’re all subsidizing the impact of fossil fuel waste for example, it just isn’t correctly accounted for.
> and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem
Even if we accept this to be true now, we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. I place blame for that squarely on low information liberals.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago> (the waste problem). The waste problem isn't solved. It's entirely a political problem rather than a technical problem, but it's still a problem. > we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. In 2015, wind&solar was 5.7% of US electricity generation. In 2021 it was 13%. In 2022 it was 16.5%. How can you extrapolate from that and come up with a century?
- creato 4y agoNuclear has been stalled in favor of fossil fuels for at least 50 years already.
- Arnt 4y agoI think you overlook the central point: The assessment that x>y is based on learned information about x and y, and the assessment that a is a smaller problem than b ditto. You may argue that the x, y, a and b are wrong, and therefore the conclusions is wrong. Well, fine, as you please. What I'm saying is that learning about x, y, a and b, then forming conclusions, is a high-information mode.