4 ms·
That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.
by comte7092 4y ago
That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.
- madsbuch 4y agoWell, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY. Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.
- comte7092 4y ago>Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. I took this to be an either or statement, apologies if that was not your intention. >Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Overhauling the entire energy system is a huge effort, even more so when the demands grow year after year. Hitting that target in the requisite timeframe is much easier if the energy demands are lessened through conservation.
- madsbuch 4y agoåh, I understand. the latter part of my comment was the simpler "edgy" statement. and yes, I completely agree with your assessment around the overhauling effort.