3 ms·

>all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost What? No. That makes no sense. Human development includes a lot of things

>all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost What? No. That makes no sense. Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. >Those who take climate change seriously should have gone all in on nuclear, but somehow there was enough of an overlap between that group and anti-nuclear activists that it never happened. That's what's truly baffling. Follow the money: https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-to-antinuclear-movement/ https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-... >Barring [nuclear energy], abundant, cheap, stable, and regrettably unclean energy from fossil fuels is the second best option. What about increasing renewable energy options? What about increasing carbon efficiency by introducing it as a concept into markets via a carbon tax significant enough to drive innovation and behavior change? What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? What about reducing meat consumption?

gottorf 3y ago
> Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. What other concept so concisely captures the difference between how our primitive ape ancestors lived, to how cavemen lived, to how the ancient cultures lived, to how we live now? Or how countries at different stages of development now are to each other? The Human Development Index correlates highly with per capita energy expenditure[0]. It's basically a necessary but not sufficient component of human development; otherwise you'd see countries in the lower-right quadrant of that chart. I find it surprising that you have such a strong reaction to this. > Follow the money Of course, Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying, too. Doesn't mean that the public, especially the interested and motivated public ("those who take climate change seriously"), should have been duped by it. No one is absolving Big Oil for their part in swaying public opinion, but the public should also grow a backbone. > What about [...] They're all good ideas. My point is that good ideas don't happen in a vacuum. Everything carries with it an opportunity cost. "Increasing renewable energy options" isn't something that happens as a result of someone waving a wand; it's accomplished using limited time and resources that could be used elsewhere. So when you implement those ideas by taking away from fossil fuels, you had better make sure that the tradeoff is worth it. > What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? On this point especially, I'm all for reforming zoning so that cities can become more dense. This would alleviate so many problems in America's highly desirable cities that are laughably sparse compared to other world cities (but of course, the precious "neighborhood character"...). And sure, let's improve transit systems. But how? Take a look at the MTA's budget[1]: only a quarter is paid for by fares, meaning that people who don't use the subway already pay for three-quarters of the MTA. Even pre-pandemic, fares were a little over a third[2]. And this is in the area with the highest transit usage percentage by far out of anywhere in the country; the one place where they should be able to make it work! So it appears that there is already a high degree of subsidization of subways and trains. Given how rapidly the ridership experience is deteriorating in almost all American transit systems, it seems irresponsible to put even more tax dollars in that direction, without first addressing the issues that make people not want to ride them very much. [0]: https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-the-level-of-human-development/ https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-... [1]: http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.html http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.htm... [2]: https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Adopted-Budget-February-Financial-Plan_2019-2022.pdf https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Ad...
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying One is bigger than the other. > the public should also grow a backbone :) > zoning & public transport Let's take inspiration in Europe or Japan, not in the USA. You want more of public transport, not less. And you want it ideally (almost) free, omnipresent and reliable, to let more people use it. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-los-angeles-great-american-streetcar-scandal https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-...
- mcdonje 3y ago
  You framed a correlation like a requirement. Human development involves a lot of things, many of which don't have a strong causal relationship with energy usage. That chart has major outliers on the top right. Most countries toward the top are clustered close to the left. Yes, the top left is rounded off and everyone at the top uses more resources than everyone at the bottom, but the outliers are enough to skew an average and make the effect appear larger than it is. My reading is that several energy intensive countries can significantly reduce their energy expenditure while maintaining a high level of human development.

gottorf 3y ago

> Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. What other concept so concisely captures the difference between how our primitive ape ancestors lived, to how cavemen lived, to how the ancient cultures lived, to how we live now? Or how countries at different stages of development now are to each other? The Human Development Index correlates highly with per capita energy expenditure[0]. It's basically a necessary but not sufficient component of human development; otherwise you'd see countries in the lower-right quadrant of that chart. I find it surprising that you have such a strong reaction to this. > Follow the money Of course, Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying, too. Doesn't mean that the public, especially the interested and motivated public ("those who take climate change seriously"), should have been duped by it. No one is absolving Big Oil for their part in swaying public opinion, but the public should also grow a backbone. > What about [...] They're all good ideas. My point is that good ideas don't happen in a vacuum. Everything carries with it an opportunity cost. "Increasing renewable energy options" isn't something that happens as a result of someone waving a wand; it's accomplished using limited time and resources that could be used elsewhere. So when you implement those ideas by taking away from fossil fuels, you had better make sure that the tradeoff is worth it. > What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? On this point especially, I'm all for reforming zoning so that cities can become more dense. This would alleviate so many problems in America's highly desirable cities that are laughably sparse compared to other world cities (but of course, the precious "neighborhood character"...). And sure, let's improve transit systems. But how? Take a look at the MTA's budget[1]: only a quarter is paid for by fares, meaning that people who don't use the subway already pay for three-quarters of the MTA. Even pre-pandemic, fares were a little over a third[2]. And this is in the area with the highest transit usage percentage by far out of anywhere in the country; the one place where they should be able to make it work! So it appears that there is already a high degree of subsidization of subways and trains. Given how rapidly the ridership experience is deteriorating in almost all American transit systems, it seems irresponsible to put even more tax dollars in that direction, without first addressing the issues that make people not want to ride them very much. [0]: https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-the-level-of-human-development/ https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-... [1]: http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.html http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.htm... [2]: https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Adopted-Budget-February-Financial-Plan_2019-2022.pdf https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Ad...

myshpa 3y ago
> Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying One is bigger than the other. > the public should also grow a backbone :) > zoning & public transport Let's take inspiration in Europe or Japan, not in the USA. You want more of public transport, not less. And you want it ideally (almost) free, omnipresent and reliable, to let more people use it. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-los-angeles-great-american-streetcar-scandal https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-...
mcdonje 3y ago
You framed a correlation like a requirement. Human development involves a lot of things, many of which don't have a strong causal relationship with energy usage. That chart has major outliers on the top right. Most countries toward the top are clustered close to the left. Yes, the top left is rounded off and everyone at the top uses more resources than everyone at the bottom, but the outliers are enough to skew an average and make the effect appear larger than it is. My reading is that several energy intensive countries can significantly reduce their energy expenditure while maintaining a high level of human development.