3 ms·

No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Depriving your children with a future is on a whole other level. And that is exactly where

by tda 4y ago

No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Depriving your children with a future is on a whole other level. And that is exactly where we are heading: climate catastrophe leading to famine, drought, flooding, unmanageable sea level rise etc. People could do with a lot less energy 40 years ago, I'm sure we can get by just fine with a little less.

nostrebored 4y ago
Inconvenience is a very poor guess. Energy restriction kills people.
- zaroth 4y ago
  More people than the climate, that’s for sure. Energy production levels must increase profoundly, while costs must fall. This is already happening, and not even that slowly in the grand scheme of things. Personal energy generation and storage is already cheaper than the grid as long as you can finance the upfront investment at a reasonable rate. I’ll say it until I’m, err, green in the face. Make clean energy cheaper and more abundant and it will be used. Make climate friendly products more compelling and cheaper than their dirtier substitutes, and the better products will win on the open market. Climate austerity is not so much “saving the future” but rather “murdering the poor” and I find it morally indefensible.
  - tda 4y ago
    No poor people will die from e.g. flying less, downsizing our cars or eating less meat. That is because the really poor (or perhaps half of all humans) don't fly, don't have cars and don't have a cheap meat based diet.
tenpies 4y ago
> depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Where do you live? I mean this rhetorically, because for a couple billion of people your definition of "minor inconvenience" is literally death. Ask a Canadian how inconvenient it is to go without heat in the winter. Ask an elderly Singaporean how inconvenient it is to go without AC in the summer.
- tda 4y ago
  As a rule of thumb, energy use by poor people is negligible with respect to the energy use of the rich. I'm sure Australia, the US and Europe could do just fine witb half their current energy usage. Take for example the situation in Europe : energy prices skyrocketed last winter and as a result 30% less natural gas was used. On a macro level this was only a minor inconvenience, nothing more. If we want, we can buy less styff, fly less, reduce the temperature in our homes, eat less meat and spend less time commuting to a bullshit job. All without causing major inconvenience. Remember how the entire world was effectively able to switch to lockdown+work from home overnight without coming to a standstill? Very inconvenient, but definitely not the end of the world
seiferteric 4y ago
Roughly half the people alive today exist because of cheap energy. If you take that away, it will be more than inconvenient.
zizee 4y ago
> No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Wow. This is so incredibly out of touch. The world consists of more than just wealthy people driving large cars, living in large houses, flying for vacation and work. Even poorer people in rich/developed countries people die due to lack of cheap energy through heatstroke or freezing. And that is just at a micro level. At a macro level a huge amount of the world's food production relies on cheap energy. Take it away and there will be disastrous consequences.

by tda 4y ago

nostrebored 4y ago

Inconvenience is a very poor guess. Energy restriction kills people.

zaroth 4y ago
More people than the climate, that’s for sure. Energy production levels must increase profoundly, while costs must fall. This is already happening, and not even that slowly in the grand scheme of things. Personal energy generation and storage is already cheaper than the grid as long as you can finance the upfront investment at a reasonable rate. I’ll say it until I’m, err, green in the face. Make clean energy cheaper and more abundant and it will be used. Make climate friendly products more compelling and cheaper than their dirtier substitutes, and the better products will win on the open market. Climate austerity is not so much “saving the future” but rather “murdering the poor” and I find it morally indefensible.
- tda 4y ago
  No poor people will die from e.g. flying less, downsizing our cars or eating less meat. That is because the really poor (or perhaps half of all humans) don't fly, don't have cars and don't have a cheap meat based diet.

tenpies 4y ago

> depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Where do you live? I mean this rhetorically, because for a couple billion of people your definition of "minor inconvenience" is literally death. Ask a Canadian how inconvenient it is to go without heat in the winter. Ask an elderly Singaporean how inconvenient it is to go without AC in the summer.

tda 4y ago
As a rule of thumb, energy use by poor people is negligible with respect to the energy use of the rich. I'm sure Australia, the US and Europe could do just fine witb half their current energy usage. Take for example the situation in Europe : energy prices skyrocketed last winter and as a result 30% less natural gas was used. On a macro level this was only a minor inconvenience, nothing more. If we want, we can buy less styff, fly less, reduce the temperature in our homes, eat less meat and spend less time commuting to a bullshit job. All without causing major inconvenience. Remember how the entire world was effectively able to switch to lockdown+work from home overnight without coming to a standstill? Very inconvenient, but definitely not the end of the world

seiferteric 4y ago

Roughly half the people alive today exist because of cheap energy. If you take that away, it will be more than inconvenient.

zizee 4y ago

> No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary inconvenience. Wow. This is so incredibly out of touch. The world consists of more than just wealthy people driving large cars, living in large houses, flying for vacation and work. Even poorer people in rich/developed countries people die due to lack of cheap energy through heatstroke or freezing. And that is just at a micro level. At a macro level a huge amount of the world's food production relies on cheap energy. Take it away and there will be disastrous consequences.