4 ms·
Because they are focused on fossil fuels, which are responsible for both CO2 emissions and increasing standard of living, including reduction of climate related
by nancyhn 3y ago
Because they are focused on fossil fuels, which are responsible for both CO2 emissions and increasing standard of living, including reduction of climate related deaths.
The real solution is to use a better base load fuel source, which would be nuclear, but they're not pushing for that. That necessarily means they are advocating poverty.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- V__ 3y agoIt is a solution. Just like wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/batteries are ones. None of which require poverty. I agree, that fossil fuels increased the standard of living, but that doesn't mean that it's/was the only way or that other countries have to follow suit to increase their standards of living right now.
- willcipriano 3y ago> None of which require poverty Quite the opposite they require a great deal of money
- V__ 3y agoKinda. As an example, oil nearly everywhere gets huge subsidies. Just the industry in the US, gets about $10 to $50 billion per year [1]. But those costs somehow don't seem to matter much because oil is the default. At the same time, solar/wind is often the cheapest energy source (even without subsidies). Replacing/rebuilding infrastructure is always expensive, but infrastructure which is already in place isn't free either. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-...
- willcipriano 3y agoIf solar is cheaper why aren't you building solar plants in China and India right now, you'd make millions undercutting the coal plants they are currently building. I guess everyone involved in energy there is a idiot?
- V__ 3y agoIf I had the money I would. But don't worry other people (idiots apperently) are. China and India are both some of the leading countries in added solar and wind capacity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country
- willcipriano 3y agoAlso coal and that lead is expanding, why?
- V__ 3y agoMultiple factors. The grid infrastructure isn't always there, the upfront cost is often higher (even if it is cheaper in the long run), production capacities as well as the fact that battery storage is just starting to catch up.
- willcipriano 3y ago> battery storage is just starting to catch up Wait a minute. I thought solar is cheaper. Now you are telling me they need batteries? I would've assumed that the batteries are part of that cheaper claim, otherwise you wouldn't have power at night at that claim would be very disingenuous. Sounds like the developing world still needs fossil fuels to escape poverty.
- V__ 3y agoDepending on what type of battery you use or how long you want to store it, it can be cheaper or cost competitive. But the same factors apply as well, production capacities are not catching up fast enough. Still, The end of fossil fuels is inevitable, as renewable sectors keep growing. Also, the potential for small nuclear reactors or maybe even fusion could change this even faster. If politics had backed renewables a few decades ago just as much as they back fossil fuels, we wouldn't even need to have these discussions.
- mxkopy 3y agoWhen did anyone disavow nuclear? I think the OP’s point was that fossil fuel and co. caused climate change and should be held responsible. How you could infer that they want the U.S. to be poor from that, I have no clue. The only reasonable explanation is a pro-fossil fuel agenda.