18 ms·

A day ago, there were people in Montana up in arms over the supreme court in Montana siding with climate activists. "Leftist-liberal agenda being shoved down ou

A day ago, there were people in Montana up in arms over the supreme court in Montana siding with climate activists. "Leftist-liberal agenda being shoved down our throats" I remember reading. "We need an above-the-line energy policy, we're going the wrong direction, we need to reverse course". Yet, the energy sector is growing. Solar / Renewables, growing. Demand for it, growing. The US's ability to generate it, growing. As are many other nations around the world who are realizing their energy needs are beamed to them every day, if only they would capture it. I'm sensationalizing a non-trivial task at the macro level but this is good news. The more we move away from burning things for energy, the better. Those same people, 10 years from now, when they can breathe without Benadryl, will probably take the credit for it. "See what having a robust homeland energy policy does?" :/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thrwayaistartup 3y ago
Montana has a massive amount of coal reserves, several productive oil fields, and a lot of refining capacity. If you close the oil refineries and leave coal in the ground, a lot of communities in Montana are going to become ghost towns. The lives of the children of people in those towns is going to suck -- poverty, drugs, and an early death if you can't get out. The fact that those jobs are offset by growth in solar and energy jobs doesn't help without a centralized wealth transfer, which ain't gonna happen. The problem with US political-economics right now is that the future of the country depends on making a series of "society wins, some regions win, some regions lose (win-win-lose)" decisions. Because the societal win is net, it could be made into a very attractive win-win-win situation. But everyone knows from the last half century of globalization that taking win-win-lose and turning it into win-win-win is a false promise that won't pan out.
- JTbane 3y ago
  IMHO coal should be banned as an energy source and efforts made to convert existing plants to nuclear.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Agree with a lot of your points (most especially "a bullshit promise that won't pan out"), but recent legislation does attempt to mitigate the losses the communities you mention will face as coal is rapidly phased out. Folks in the industries we're transitioning from should not be left out in the economic cold. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inflation-reduction-act-benefits-billions-in-just-transition-funding-for-coal-communities/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inf... (Inflation Reduction Act Benefits: Billions In Just Transition Funding For Coal Communities) https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_824102/lang--en/index.htm#q_0 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_824102/lan...
  - coding123 3y ago
    This is hand-waving a real concern away. It's why people on the right are so mad right now. Did we hand-wave the homelessness issue away in CA? Seems like there's an awful lot of hand-waving we did in the past 15 years growing the tech sector that left a shit-ton of people behind. I know a bunch of people are going to hand-wave this comment away too. The downvotes generated on hacker news will not translate at the voting booth.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      It's a real concern, but it is the best that is going to be provided. 2 million voters over the age of 55 die every year, 4 million voters turn 18. Conservatives can vote all they want, the electorate turnover and outcome is a combination of inertia (inflation reduction act has stoked an enormous amount of renewables manufacturing capacity coming online) and demographic destiny. Fossil fuels will die due to economics, it is just a matter of time horizon. I want to stress that I strongly support a just transition (policy should express compassion and empathy at scale), and if people can't be found other jobs, retiring them out early to bridge the gap to other social safety nets (medicare, social security, etc), but there is no path to success for conservative ideology on the issue of leaving fossil fuels behind (either through votes or economics). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052550 (citations)
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s relatively few coal jobs left. Nationwide in 2011 it was already down to 91.5 thousand coal miners by 2021 it was 39.5 thousand, again nationwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-employment-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-emplo... The industry provides more jobs for mechanics etc, but any community dependent on coal workers has already been devastated. Oil and gas are very separate as solar or wind isn’t displacing them anytime soon. In 10+ years EV’s might start to reduce the need for oil, but it’s going to be a very slow transition. If 100% of new cars are EV that’s still decades worth of existing vehicles plus boats and aircraft.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    While EVs only look like a statistical blip on the oil market now, they are taking off fast enough that it will be less than 10 years before the impact is obvious. Cars are 50% of of oil (transport is 60%, so I'll just round and assume the other 10% is trucks trains, ships, airplanes... which are not going away as fast), but new cars are already starting to move to EVs, and that trend is continuing. It will be 20 years before oil isn't a significant factor in car transport
    - Retric 3y ago
      That really depends on what you mean by obvious impact. Cars manufactured in the last year make up 4% or so of total cars on the road and thus ~2% of oil consumption. EV’s are just over 7% of new car sales right now if we assume an extremely optimistic 30% of all sales over the next 10 years that’s (4% per year * 10 years * 30% of sales * 50% of oil) = 6% reduction in oil use in 2033 vs no change. That’s significant but could easily be offset by increasing the total number of cars or other use etc. I doubt 30% of all new cars sold by 2033 will be EV’s as it would require well over 30% to be sold in years 9 and 10 to offset years 1 and 2 etc. That said, somewhere between 15 and 30 years from now I expect the difference will be very obvious as the oldest ICE cars get aged out of the global fleet to be replaced with more efficient cars + hybrids + EV’s.
      - bluGill 3y ago
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  I hate to be blunt on this topic, but it's necessary to make my point. Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century. Their mining towns are barely 100 years old, and have little history. As coal jobs gradually fade away, the community can either adapt to renewables and tech, or die out. We simply cannot sustain the burning of more coal for our children's future. Yes, please think of the children on this, and maybe only this instance.
  - thrwayaistartup 3y ago
    Yes, that's the problem with US political-economics right now. You've (failed to?) identify the "political" part of "political-economics".
    - 1970-01-01 3y ago
      I don't see a null decision as political, but I think you get the point. It's OK for the tows to die, as the alternative is worse for literally everyone.
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state’s internal politics.
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      Future archeologists will wonder at the evidence they see in tree rings and ice cores: "These morons burned coal when they had renewable energy sources?"
      - asynchronous 3y ago
        I love how no one actually addressed my comment which was we have a literal S-tier energy source pretty much anywhere we want it, at the expense of a small amount of radioactive waste, and yet we stick our heads in the sand and let the solar panel door-to-door salesmen convince us not to use it. You’re joking if you don’t include nuclear energy into the green new deal.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > Montana has a massive amount of coal reserves, several productive oil fields, and a lot of refining capacity. And also "Montana has so much renewable energy potential, it’s incredible" (1) > If you close the oil refineries and leave coal in the ground, a lot of communities in Montana are going to become ghost towns. Unless they find something else to do for money. See point above. 1) https://flatheadbeacon.com/2023/06/17/expert-cites-montanas-incredible-renewable-energy-potential-teenage-plaintiffs-mourn-inaction-as-climate-trial-hits-half-way-point/ https://flatheadbeacon.com/2023/06/17/expert-cites-montanas-...
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Frankly, screw them. They have had decades of warning and done nothing about it but whine.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  I suspect many horseshoers and saddle makers lost their income when the automobile came to be.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    Not to mention all those freshly unemployed horses.
    - sophacles 3y ago
      They found jobs in the glue industry.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Actually, in the early 20th century, those horses likely went to war.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  The thing is, if these people are going to act completely unreasonable, and completely unwilling to learn new trades, they aren't going to get a lot of sympathy from the rest of us when they go around screaming nonsense and filling their kids heads with outright lies. As others have pointed out, most of the coal jobs are already gone, these communities are already fucked, and protesting clean energy will do nothing to un-fuck them. I fully support jobs programs, training programs, welfare programs, and a whole host of other "liberal" things that would help these communities transition away from being dependent on fossil fuels, but they just get super pissy and throw all of that back in our faces.
- cbhl 3y ago
  There are also other industries in Montana. Cattle outnumber people 2:1. Wheat is also a big export. I also recall the bigger towns/cities being fairly popular places for remote work (even filling local airports over capacity), although I'm not sure if that persisted through calls to return to offices.
- outside1234 3y ago
  Coal is going away no matter what. Be it from natural gas or wind. It is just not economic anymore.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Yeah, this is basically it. We need to provide those people living coal and oil towns a pension and some type of national purpose as their jobs wind down so they aren't impoverished. The coal people can do environmental reclamation on the mines and the oil people can dig geothermal wells or something. No one has to be uprooted during their lifetime and their children will be able to make informed choices without the pressure of poverty around them.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  Solar and Wind power is available practically everywhere. So that is directly contrary to your "this region is winner take all", which is really what the old "strike it rich with black gold" of fossil fuels was. Solar/Wind is about as win-win-win as it gets right now. Also, there really isn't anything like a "coal reserve" anymore. Coal is not a useful material anymore outside of the coal fired plants that are still in operation. Coal is so far behind other forms of power generation cost (including even nuclear) that practically all coal fired plants are being actively planned for retirement/replacement. You cannot have an "economic plan for coal" that involves anything except planning for the jobs to go away. At a minimum all coal plants will be replaced with natural gas turbine. Still fossil fuel but much cleaner in particulate and so much more efficient that the carbon release is reduced. With Solar/Wind falling under gas turbine in LCOE, gas turbine will become like coal in 10 years. Solar/wind isn't responsible for the devaluation of rural communities. That happened with globalization. And economic development has historically followed the availability of cheap plentiful power, which solar/wind already represent an technological advancement in. Solar/wind are the cheapest form of power generation, and unlike coal/gas which are basically played out in terms of cost improvement, likely have another 10-20 years of cost improvement from economies of scale and technological improvement. Put it this way: if fusion became net-positive and sustained reaction tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. At the rate solar/wind are dropping, no fusion reactor would beat it economically for another 50 years.
- tiffanyg 3y ago
  Yup, that's about right, I'd say. It's disgusting, too. Every time "the experiment" is run, we find that "the returns" from preventing excessive concentration of wealth VASTLY exceed any claimed benefits of allowing individuals and individual families to limitlessly accrue. VASTLY exceed, not merely economically, but all the way "down to" things like human well-being (and lack thereof: suffering). I.e., down to the roots of strong societies, communities, and ultimately COUNTRIES. Consequently, those with an insatiable "need to hoard" know that they need to convince those with power (which, in the US, is The People [to some degree]) to believe in the opposite of the evidence. Unfortunately, of course, this is all too easy. While some degree of "representational democracy" and "mass media" and "universal public education"* increases the challenge, the class warfare continues. Some among the "upper class", in particular, engage in it very actively and intentionally, quite secure in the knowledge that terms like "data", and "evidence", and, even moreso, "statistics" / "economics", are meaningless / of little direct concern to most people. All you really need is "marketing". So, really, all you do is - keep telling people that (OUR - i.e., The People's) "government doesn't work", keep telling them it's "corrupt", etc. (fostering conditions for degrees of self-fulfilling prophecy). Remove civics classes from schools. Tell them that the government just exists to perpetuate itself and to grow unchecked ... try to get people to forget, as much as possible, how self-governing is supposed to look ... what it grew out of, how we basically self-organized, quite effectively, through decades and then centuries worth of work (and quite radical ideas ... including at least two or three periods of significant upending of feudalistic components of the economy, often involving efforts of "enlightened" "class traitors"**). Ask them if, given all of this - that "we all know" that "government doesn't work", "people in government are corrupt self-dealers", "government can't be trusted" ... they'd like to keep some more of "THEIR" money each month, which, obviously, THEY are more QUALIFIED to spend. And, of course, as politics becomes more debased and less serious - driven by actual facts and what works vs. appeals to feelings and rhetoric [marketing] - slap a pretty face on it (Reagan). Then, just rinse and repeat. Pretty soon, so many people have a solid internal wall preventing any serious consideration of appropriate taxation to pay for services far more valuable than an extra night out at a restaurant every once in a while, this modified regime is quite entrenched and resistant to movement back towards more progressive ideas. All the while, you can keep marketing more and more extreme ideas ... like, oh I don't know, "maybe we need to reevaluate that whole 'Civil Rights Act' deal...". The ideals and optimism etc. that propelled people to make changes good for themselves (in a broad sense, not narrow in time and space like greed) and society exist on the fringes - utterly extinguished in the center. Not given any serious consideration any longer. You, yourself, provide an example: "But everyone knows from the last half century of globalization that taking win-win-lose and turning it into win-win-win is a false promise that won't pan out." And, you provide it in the right context, I'd say: "The problem with US political-economics right now". It's an important point - it doesn't have to be like this. The "disruptors" of systems who have marketed against ideas like "The New Deal" have worked for decades to get us to the point we're at now. I'd say, as usual, it will take enough people getting upset enough to create the conditions in which we can have a lurch back in the other direction. The story of the 50+ years has involved a trade between "left" and "right". The left-of-center ideas have dominated on the social side of things, while the right-of-center ideas have dominated on the economic side. Seems like conditions are ripe for something of a reversal - the 10+ year ascent of "the culture war(s)" (as a more intentional and even engineered effort on the right [in part driven by being "out of actual ideas" {that are practical}] on the economic policy side for probably 2 decades or more) are evidence and fertile ground for reversal ... combined with heightened economic insecurity ONCE AGAIN. But, we'll have to wait to find out just how pissed off people really are ... and, if they can find their way back to the best lever US citizens get for pushing the system the way it needs to be pushed - the "voting booth 'lever'".*** * Thomas Jefferson was quite the "disruptor", pushing for universal education as early as he did (he was a complex person - my knowledge is fairly limited, but my general impression is that he would have fit in rather well with the subpopulation of "baby boomers" who experimented with radical "hippie" ideas in the 60s. Plenty in this generation, after this brief "Rumspringa", turned around, moved to suburbia, became part of the system they experimented with fighting, voted for a "pretty face" and "pretty words" wrapped around ideas they generally found repulsive only a decade or two earlier [Reagan], etc. That should not be taken to diminish Jefferson in any way - not my intention. And, he did much that was positive, but also, plenty that wasn't. My sense is that he's somewhat more difficult to judge / analyze than someone like Washington, who was very principled, "virtuous" [in a sort of "honesty internally" &/ of core character], consistent, etc. Who, interestingly, had a life more akin to the self-made immigrants who came through Ellis Island, say, raising his station up through life from a really low rung among the gentry class, all the way through leader of a nation he helped found.) ** People who go into history books as "Great", and certainly tend to be recognized for "virtue", "humanity", and "equity" and such - who REALLY embraced the idea "All men are created equal..." (where "men" is understood variously, of course, but, in an arc / from principles that only concludes in a meaning of "All people"). I.e., Washington et al., Lincoln et al., FDR et al. ... while others like "the Mercers"**** lurk in the shadows and work to dismantle the deservedly popular and virtuous work that brought such benefit to individuals AND the nation as a whole (aside from the grievances of the wealth and power hoarders). *** What an anachronism, now, eh? ... Anyway, the change in voting patterns among other factors suggest political pressure is really starting to ramp up. ... Lastly, this comment is absolutely absurd in length - apologies and apologies for likely mistakes, can't really look it over right now, time has grown tight. **** Also around in the time of Washington - the ancestry isn't simple, various Mercers weren't uniform in Loyalist sympathies, and, AFAIK, the current extreme right-wing Robert Mercer's direct ancestors didn't arrive in the colonial era, but, this family is comparatively visible right now and can be viewed within that sort of model (association of a give family with a particular member and their views, e.g., George Washington)
- la64710 3y ago
  From HTML to CSS to JS to React to God knows what … we have to learn new technologies all the time. Folks should be retrained on new technologies and transferred to new jobs for a nice transition to happen. Why we make it so complicated?
- theptip 3y ago
  These jobs are going sooner or later. It’s cheaper to build new solar than to operate existing coal plants in many places in the US. If you are serious about the welfare of folks currently working in the coal industry, IMO you need to look at retraining programs (say, Green New Deal style) to replace fossil jobs with building wind, solar, battery, etc. components. Pragmatically I’m fine with buying off the coal communities with subsidies to transition to green tech. We should not just leave them hanging. The people advocating for a green energy economy understand this and are generally in favor of supporting those that worked in the fossil industry. However the lobbyist dollars opposing a green transition come from the big companies that stand to lose huge revenue streams, and they don’t seem to be that interested in the long-term welfare of those in the industry.
- zamalek 3y ago
  The problem is that either Montana springs up ghost towns, or the likes of Florida become uninhabitable as an entire state as hurricanes becomes worse. Furthermore, this pity for the poor coal miners is as good as having pity for hitmen, because their job is now actually killing people (one example, top Google result: https://www.voanews.com/a/death-toll-rises-as-heat-wave-grips-northern-india-/7145737.html https://www.voanews.com/a/death-toll-rises-as-heat-wave-grip...).
Bostonian 3y ago
Courts rather than legislatures making climate policy is indeed "an agenda being shoved down our throats". Legislators who face elections are more likely to consider tradeoffs.
- duxup 3y ago
  Courts act based on ... something. You can agree with the reasoning or not but it's not simply an arbitrary policy based on nothing. In the Montana situation it is based on the rights of younger people who will take the brunt of choices made today. Courts make decisions all the time about balancing different people's rights.
- lolinder 3y ago
  It is widely accepted that one of the court's jobs is to determine whether the legislature's laws are in line with state and federal constitutions. This mechanism exists to make sure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority simply because they control the legislature. The ruling in this case is weirdly hard to find, probably because it's not a supreme court case yet, but the reports say that all the judge did was strike down one provision of a law that the legislature passed, according to a pretty reasonable interpretation of this provision in the state constitution [0]. [0] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0090-0010-0010.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
  - sophacles 3y ago
    Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that convention were not the legislature (because the previous constitution forbade someone from holding 2 elected offices at one time). The people elected were largely not even politicians, just regular people. Therefore it shouldn't matter at all - the parent post comes from a position of "the people must be ruled over" and the Montana constitution has a "will of the people" vibe.
    - 3y ago
irrational 3y ago
Breathe without Benadryl? Isn’t Benadryl used for allergies? Allergies come mainly from plants and pollen. Hopefully those won’t be going away as we adopt solar more.
- slacka 3y ago
  I’m diagnosed as having pollution induced Asthma and allergies to wood smoke. While I need steroids or an N95 mask when the air quality is very poor, Benadryl indeed does help with the symptoms. What value does your comment add by nick picking his comment? The premise of his argument is correct. Fossil fuels kill far more people than renewables and nuclear. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/which-power-sources-are-most-deadly-hint-not-solar-and-wind https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/which-powe...
  - irrational 3y ago
    Because even if we went 100% fossil free today, we’d still need Benadryl to breathe.
- sophacles 3y ago
  > Asthma and allergic diseases cases have risen in recent decades. Plant pollen is considered as the main aeroallergen causing allergic reactions. According to available data, urban residents experience more respiratory allergies than rural residents mainly due to the interaction between chemical air pollutants and pollen grains. From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941124/ There's a lot of research linking the two - particulate matter in the air from burning coal is another allergen related to this.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  It reduces inflammation in the respiratory track. Relax.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Aunche 3y ago
Everyone is happy when the government throws free money at them. That's why even the most climate denying and self proclaimed "fiscally conservative" politicians will vote for subsidizing new solar jobs in their free state. What people get up and arms about are policies that destroy jobs or make things more expensive. This why all climate-change related legislation is about throwing free money at the problem rather than pricing in the externality in bad environmental practices. Even in the farthest left of politicians only make vague suggestions of a carbon tax because they know that they'd immediately get kicked out of office if they allowed gasoline prices to rise to what they are in Europe, let taxing all sources of greenhouse gases.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  "destroy jobs" > Jobs up 95% "more expensive" > free money.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    You're acting as if I made a contraction, but I didn't. Montana is getting sued because they aren't destroying jobs, and neither is any other state. The government is granting free money to people who buy solar panels, EVs, etc which is why jobs are being created.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    What are you trying to say?
- datavirtue 3y ago
  I see people up in arms about massive solar farm installations in Ohio. I'm not sure what the issues are as no one has ever quantified them other than to say "I moved here because of the fields" or "They are gobbling up good farm land for solar panels." You see signs everywhere: "Say NO to Solar!" As an Appalachian I recognize this as a miss. These people could have easily legislated (and still can!) a cut of the energy $$ to themselves. Instead they are trying to burn it all down and will be unsuccessful at it. Where is JD Vance or Mike DeWine on that one? Probably too busy ducking energy policy corruption charges.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I like green energy as much as the next guy but I think it's hard to know if it's growing organically or growing because the government is spending trillions of dollars on it.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  It was growing even under Trump's admin, who was NOT spending trillions on it. China made renewables cheaper than coal.
- nomel 3y ago
  One aspect is that storage is getting cheaper than peaker plants [1][2], in the "more profit with storage" sense. [1] https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.article... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/natural-gas-in-transition-grid-balancing-tactics-in-flux-as-battery-costs-fall-64822077#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20analysis,plant%20average%20at%20%24173%2FMWh https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights....
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
We were promised cheaper energy. Nothing is cheaper about renewables, and the costs grow ~3% per year. To say nothing of the raw materials demand, requirement of fossil fuels to develop and use 'renewables' and the cost to replace such equipment. For example, battery replacement for EV are outside of affordability for the mass market. And of course, there is the inescapable long term problem of 250MM electric vehicles requiring charge when we're already telling people that they can't charge their EV due to grid constraints. The inconvenient truth is this; there isn't enough raw material on earth to electrify all transportation, upgrade the entire national grid (every line, every transformer, every substation) to meet the demand that an total EV conversion demands, not for 30 years and definitely not by 2030. Saying otherwise is simple wishful thinking. My apologies in advance for offending the perpetual victims in the church of climatology.
hexhexhexagon 3y ago
“the more we move away from burning things for energy, the better” is not self evident. We’ve been burning things for energy since the invention of fire 1 or 2 million years ago. It is a major major factor for how we have built this global civilization that we all benefit from. That said, we moved away from burning fire, not because we ran out of wood, but because we found something more efficient. Currently, hydrocarbons are the single best method of generating and delivering cheap, reliable energy. Only nuclear comes close, but for some stupid reason it is demonized. Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time. You are ignoring the main reason we have to move away from burning things for energy: it is making our future selves flourish less. People aren't suggesting to move towards renewables because they look better or because it just feels so nice to use solar energy. The negative externalities from our energy usage today are literally negatively affecting, partially even destroying, our future. If you only look at the present you're ignoring all the problems our current consumption of fossil fuels is introducing. Imagine your grandma is cold. Sure, you can warm her up by setting her house on fire, but it will only help for a short time.
  - hexhexhexagon 3y ago
    Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the extent that we can make the planet more survivable, fossil fuels is our number one energy source for making that happen, and nothing comes close. I’m a fan of solar and wind, as much as I am of hydroelectric, but they simply can’t handle the demand at their current output. Not to mention, they require energy from the burning of fossil fuels to build their own infrastructure, and then even more to provide the on-demand backups whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow enough. The energy we derive from fossil fuels is precisely why we have thriving civilization and flourishing humans today. Nowhere where fossil fuels are absent do we see such flourishing. That doesn’t mean we should put our heads down and burn burn burn until the planet runs dry. It means we should acknowledge the good and the bad, and work towards a more sustainable future. In my opinion, until we come up with a better way to harness solar energy (which is what hydrocarbons actually are), we can’t lock ourselves into solar panels and batteries. There has to be something more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons. It’s nuclear. Nuclear is the answer. The faster we can get people, countries and continents to adopt nuclear, the faster we can move toward a future where our energy concerns effectively disappear.
nomel 3y ago
> A day ago, there were people > ... I remember reading Any references?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thrwayaistartup 3y ago

Montana has a massive amount of coal reserves, several productive oil fields, and a lot of refining capacity. If you close the oil refineries and leave coal in the ground, a lot of communities in Montana are going to become ghost towns. The lives of the children of people in those towns is going to suck -- poverty, drugs, and an early death if you can't get out. The fact that those jobs are offset by growth in solar and energy jobs doesn't help without a centralized wealth transfer, which ain't gonna happen. The problem with US political-economics right now is that the future of the country depends on making a series of "society wins, some regions win, some regions lose (win-win-lose)" decisions. Because the societal win is net, it could be made into a very attractive win-win-win situation. But everyone knows from the last half century of globalization that taking win-win-lose and turning it into win-win-win is a false promise that won't pan out.

JTbane 3y ago
IMHO coal should be banned as an energy source and efforts made to convert existing plants to nuclear.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Agree with a lot of your points (most especially "a bullshit promise that won't pan out"), but recent legislation does attempt to mitigate the losses the communities you mention will face as coal is rapidly phased out. Folks in the industries we're transitioning from should not be left out in the economic cold. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inflation-reduction-act-benefits-billions-in-just-transition-funding-for-coal-communities/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inf... (Inflation Reduction Act Benefits: Billions In Just Transition Funding For Coal Communities) https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_824102/lang--en/index.htm#q_0 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_824102/lan...
- coding123 3y ago
  This is hand-waving a real concern away. It's why people on the right are so mad right now. Did we hand-wave the homelessness issue away in CA? Seems like there's an awful lot of hand-waving we did in the past 15 years growing the tech sector that left a shit-ton of people behind. I know a bunch of people are going to hand-wave this comment away too. The downvotes generated on hacker news will not translate at the voting booth.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    It's a real concern, but it is the best that is going to be provided. 2 million voters over the age of 55 die every year, 4 million voters turn 18. Conservatives can vote all they want, the electorate turnover and outcome is a combination of inertia (inflation reduction act has stoked an enormous amount of renewables manufacturing capacity coming online) and demographic destiny. Fossil fuels will die due to economics, it is just a matter of time horizon. I want to stress that I strongly support a just transition (policy should express compassion and empathy at scale), and if people can't be found other jobs, retiring them out early to bridge the gap to other social safety nets (medicare, social security, etc), but there is no path to success for conservative ideology on the issue of leaving fossil fuels behind (either through votes or economics). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052550 (citations)
Retric 3y ago
There’s relatively few coal jobs left. Nationwide in 2011 it was already down to 91.5 thousand coal miners by 2021 it was 39.5 thousand, again nationwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-employment-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-emplo... The industry provides more jobs for mechanics etc, but any community dependent on coal workers has already been devastated. Oil and gas are very separate as solar or wind isn’t displacing them anytime soon. In 10+ years EV’s might start to reduce the need for oil, but it’s going to be a very slow transition. If 100% of new cars are EV that’s still decades worth of existing vehicles plus boats and aircraft.
- bluGill 3y ago
  While EVs only look like a statistical blip on the oil market now, they are taking off fast enough that it will be less than 10 years before the impact is obvious. Cars are 50% of of oil (transport is 60%, so I'll just round and assume the other 10% is trucks trains, ships, airplanes... which are not going away as fast), but new cars are already starting to move to EVs, and that trend is continuing. It will be 20 years before oil isn't a significant factor in car transport
  - Retric 3y ago
    That really depends on what you mean by obvious impact. Cars manufactured in the last year make up 4% or so of total cars on the road and thus ~2% of oil consumption. EV’s are just over 7% of new car sales right now if we assume an extremely optimistic 30% of all sales over the next 10 years that’s (4% per year * 10 years * 30% of sales * 50% of oil) = 6% reduction in oil use in 2033 vs no change. That’s significant but could easily be offset by increasing the total number of cars or other use etc. I doubt 30% of all new cars sold by 2033 will be EV’s as it would require well over 30% to be sold in years 9 and 10 to offset years 1 and 2 etc. That said, somewhere between 15 and 30 years from now I expect the difference will be very obvious as the oldest ICE cars get aged out of the global fleet to be replaced with more efficient cars + hybrids + EV’s.
    - bluGill 3y ago
1970-01-01 3y ago
I hate to be blunt on this topic, but it's necessary to make my point. Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century. Their mining towns are barely 100 years old, and have little history. As coal jobs gradually fade away, the community can either adapt to renewables and tech, or die out. We simply cannot sustain the burning of more coal for our children's future. Yes, please think of the children on this, and maybe only this instance.
- thrwayaistartup 3y ago
  Yes, that's the problem with US political-economics right now. You've (failed to?) identify the "political" part of "political-economics".
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    I don't see a null decision as political, but I think you get the point. It's OK for the tows to die, as the alternative is worse for literally everyone.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state’s internal politics.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Future archeologists will wonder at the evidence they see in tree rings and ice cores: "These morons burned coal when they had renewable energy sources?"
    - asynchronous 3y ago
      I love how no one actually addressed my comment which was we have a literal S-tier energy source pretty much anywhere we want it, at the expense of a small amount of radioactive waste, and yet we stick our heads in the sand and let the solar panel door-to-door salesmen convince us not to use it. You’re joking if you don’t include nuclear energy into the green new deal.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> Montana has a massive amount of coal reserves, several productive oil fields, and a lot of refining capacity. And also "Montana has so much renewable energy potential, it’s incredible" (1) > If you close the oil refineries and leave coal in the ground, a lot of communities in Montana are going to become ghost towns. Unless they find something else to do for money. See point above. 1) https://flatheadbeacon.com/2023/06/17/expert-cites-montanas-incredible-renewable-energy-potential-teenage-plaintiffs-mourn-inaction-as-climate-trial-hits-half-way-point/ https://flatheadbeacon.com/2023/06/17/expert-cites-montanas-...
throwawaysleep 3y ago
Frankly, screw them. They have had decades of warning and done nothing about it but whine.
bdcravens 3y ago
I suspect many horseshoers and saddle makers lost their income when the automobile came to be.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  Not to mention all those freshly unemployed horses.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    They found jobs in the glue industry.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Actually, in the early 20th century, those horses likely went to war.
babypuncher 3y ago
The thing is, if these people are going to act completely unreasonable, and completely unwilling to learn new trades, they aren't going to get a lot of sympathy from the rest of us when they go around screaming nonsense and filling their kids heads with outright lies. As others have pointed out, most of the coal jobs are already gone, these communities are already fucked, and protesting clean energy will do nothing to un-fuck them. I fully support jobs programs, training programs, welfare programs, and a whole host of other "liberal" things that would help these communities transition away from being dependent on fossil fuels, but they just get super pissy and throw all of that back in our faces.
cbhl 3y ago
There are also other industries in Montana. Cattle outnumber people 2:1. Wheat is also a big export. I also recall the bigger towns/cities being fairly popular places for remote work (even filling local airports over capacity), although I'm not sure if that persisted through calls to return to offices.
outside1234 3y ago
Coal is going away no matter what. Be it from natural gas or wind. It is just not economic anymore.
arrosenberg 3y ago
Yeah, this is basically it. We need to provide those people living coal and oil towns a pension and some type of national purpose as their jobs wind down so they aren't impoverished. The coal people can do environmental reclamation on the mines and the oil people can dig geothermal wells or something. No one has to be uprooted during their lifetime and their children will be able to make informed choices without the pressure of poverty around them.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Solar and Wind power is available practically everywhere. So that is directly contrary to your "this region is winner take all", which is really what the old "strike it rich with black gold" of fossil fuels was. Solar/Wind is about as win-win-win as it gets right now. Also, there really isn't anything like a "coal reserve" anymore. Coal is not a useful material anymore outside of the coal fired plants that are still in operation. Coal is so far behind other forms of power generation cost (including even nuclear) that practically all coal fired plants are being actively planned for retirement/replacement. You cannot have an "economic plan for coal" that involves anything except planning for the jobs to go away. At a minimum all coal plants will be replaced with natural gas turbine. Still fossil fuel but much cleaner in particulate and so much more efficient that the carbon release is reduced. With Solar/Wind falling under gas turbine in LCOE, gas turbine will become like coal in 10 years. Solar/wind isn't responsible for the devaluation of rural communities. That happened with globalization. And economic development has historically followed the availability of cheap plentiful power, which solar/wind already represent an technological advancement in. Solar/wind are the cheapest form of power generation, and unlike coal/gas which are basically played out in terms of cost improvement, likely have another 10-20 years of cost improvement from economies of scale and technological improvement. Put it this way: if fusion became net-positive and sustained reaction tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. At the rate solar/wind are dropping, no fusion reactor would beat it economically for another 50 years.
tiffanyg 3y ago
Yup, that's about right, I'd say. It's disgusting, too. Every time "the experiment" is run, we find that "the returns" from preventing excessive concentration of wealth VASTLY exceed any claimed benefits of allowing individuals and individual families to limitlessly accrue. VASTLY exceed, not merely economically, but all the way "down to" things like human well-being (and lack thereof: suffering). I.e., down to the roots of strong societies, communities, and ultimately COUNTRIES. Consequently, those with an insatiable "need to hoard" know that they need to convince those with power (which, in the US, is The People [to some degree]) to believe in the opposite of the evidence. Unfortunately, of course, this is all too easy. While some degree of "representational democracy" and "mass media" and "universal public education"* increases the challenge, the class warfare continues. Some among the "upper class", in particular, engage in it very actively and intentionally, quite secure in the knowledge that terms like "data", and "evidence", and, even moreso, "statistics" / "economics", are meaningless / of little direct concern to most people. All you really need is "marketing". So, really, all you do is - keep telling people that (OUR - i.e., The People's) "government doesn't work", keep telling them it's "corrupt", etc. (fostering conditions for degrees of self-fulfilling prophecy). Remove civics classes from schools. Tell them that the government just exists to perpetuate itself and to grow unchecked ... try to get people to forget, as much as possible, how self-governing is supposed to look ... what it grew out of, how we basically self-organized, quite effectively, through decades and then centuries worth of work (and quite radical ideas ... including at least two or three periods of significant upending of feudalistic components of the economy, often involving efforts of "enlightened" "class traitors"**). Ask them if, given all of this - that "we all know" that "government doesn't work", "people in government are corrupt self-dealers", "government can't be trusted" ... they'd like to keep some more of "THEIR" money each month, which, obviously, THEY are more QUALIFIED to spend. And, of course, as politics becomes more debased and less serious - driven by actual facts and what works vs. appeals to feelings and rhetoric [marketing] - slap a pretty face on it (Reagan). Then, just rinse and repeat. Pretty soon, so many people have a solid internal wall preventing any serious consideration of appropriate taxation to pay for services far more valuable than an extra night out at a restaurant every once in a while, this modified regime is quite entrenched and resistant to movement back towards more progressive ideas. All the while, you can keep marketing more and more extreme ideas ... like, oh I don't know, "maybe we need to reevaluate that whole 'Civil Rights Act' deal...". The ideals and optimism etc. that propelled people to make changes good for themselves (in a broad sense, not narrow in time and space like greed) and society exist on the fringes - utterly extinguished in the center. Not given any serious consideration any longer. You, yourself, provide an example: "But everyone knows from the last half century of globalization that taking win-win-lose and turning it into win-win-win is a false promise that won't pan out." And, you provide it in the right context, I'd say: "The problem with US political-economics right now". It's an important point - it doesn't have to be like this. The "disruptors" of systems who have marketed against ideas like "The New Deal" have worked for decades to get us to the point we're at now. I'd say, as usual, it will take enough people getting upset enough to create the conditions in which we can have a lurch back in the other direction. The story of the 50+ years has involved a trade between "left" and "right". The left-of-center ideas have dominated on the social side of things, while the right-of-center ideas have dominated on the economic side. Seems like conditions are ripe for something of a reversal - the 10+ year ascent of "the culture war(s)" (as a more intentional and even engineered effort on the right [in part driven by being "out of actual ideas" {that are practical}] on the economic policy side for probably 2 decades or more) are evidence and fertile ground for reversal ... combined with heightened economic insecurity ONCE AGAIN. But, we'll have to wait to find out just how pissed off people really are ... and, if they can find their way back to the best lever US citizens get for pushing the system the way it needs to be pushed - the "voting booth 'lever'".*** * Thomas Jefferson was quite the "disruptor", pushing for universal education as early as he did (he was a complex person - my knowledge is fairly limited, but my general impression is that he would have fit in rather well with the subpopulation of "baby boomers" who experimented with radical "hippie" ideas in the 60s. Plenty in this generation, after this brief "Rumspringa", turned around, moved to suburbia, became part of the system they experimented with fighting, voted for a "pretty face" and "pretty words" wrapped around ideas they generally found repulsive only a decade or two earlier [Reagan], etc. That should not be taken to diminish Jefferson in any way - not my intention. And, he did much that was positive, but also, plenty that wasn't. My sense is that he's somewhat more difficult to judge / analyze than someone like Washington, who was very principled, "virtuous" [in a sort of "honesty internally" &/ of core character], consistent, etc. Who, interestingly, had a life more akin to the self-made immigrants who came through Ellis Island, say, raising his station up through life from a really low rung among the gentry class, all the way through leader of a nation he helped found.) ** People who go into history books as "Great", and certainly tend to be recognized for "virtue", "humanity", and "equity" and such - who REALLY embraced the idea "All men are created equal..." (where "men" is understood variously, of course, but, in an arc / from principles that only concludes in a meaning of "All people"). I.e., Washington et al., Lincoln et al., FDR et al. ... while others like "the Mercers"**** lurk in the shadows and work to dismantle the deservedly popular and virtuous work that brought such benefit to individuals AND the nation as a whole (aside from the grievances of the wealth and power hoarders). *** What an anachronism, now, eh? ... Anyway, the change in voting patterns among other factors suggest political pressure is really starting to ramp up. ... Lastly, this comment is absolutely absurd in length - apologies and apologies for likely mistakes, can't really look it over right now, time has grown tight. **** Also around in the time of Washington - the ancestry isn't simple, various Mercers weren't uniform in Loyalist sympathies, and, AFAIK, the current extreme right-wing Robert Mercer's direct ancestors didn't arrive in the colonial era, but, this family is comparatively visible right now and can be viewed within that sort of model (association of a give family with a particular member and their views, e.g., George Washington)
la64710 3y ago
From HTML to CSS to JS to React to God knows what … we have to learn new technologies all the time. Folks should be retrained on new technologies and transferred to new jobs for a nice transition to happen. Why we make it so complicated?
theptip 3y ago
These jobs are going sooner or later. It’s cheaper to build new solar than to operate existing coal plants in many places in the US. If you are serious about the welfare of folks currently working in the coal industry, IMO you need to look at retraining programs (say, Green New Deal style) to replace fossil jobs with building wind, solar, battery, etc. components. Pragmatically I’m fine with buying off the coal communities with subsidies to transition to green tech. We should not just leave them hanging. The people advocating for a green energy economy understand this and are generally in favor of supporting those that worked in the fossil industry. However the lobbyist dollars opposing a green transition come from the big companies that stand to lose huge revenue streams, and they don’t seem to be that interested in the long-term welfare of those in the industry.
zamalek 3y ago
The problem is that either Montana springs up ghost towns, or the likes of Florida become uninhabitable as an entire state as hurricanes becomes worse. Furthermore, this pity for the poor coal miners is as good as having pity for hitmen, because their job is now actually killing people (one example, top Google result: https://www.voanews.com/a/death-toll-rises-as-heat-wave-grips-northern-india-/7145737.html https://www.voanews.com/a/death-toll-rises-as-heat-wave-grip...).

Bostonian 3y ago

Courts rather than legislatures making climate policy is indeed "an agenda being shoved down our throats". Legislators who face elections are more likely to consider tradeoffs.

duxup 3y ago
Courts act based on ... something. You can agree with the reasoning or not but it's not simply an arbitrary policy based on nothing. In the Montana situation it is based on the rights of younger people who will take the brunt of choices made today. Courts make decisions all the time about balancing different people's rights.
lolinder 3y ago
It is widely accepted that one of the court's jobs is to determine whether the legislature's laws are in line with state and federal constitutions. This mechanism exists to make sure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority simply because they control the legislature. The ruling in this case is weirdly hard to find, probably because it's not a supreme court case yet, but the reports say that all the judge did was strike down one provision of a law that the legislature passed, according to a pretty reasonable interpretation of this provision in the state constitution [0]. [0] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0090-0010-0010.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
- sophacles 3y ago
  Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that convention were not the legislature (because the previous constitution forbade someone from holding 2 elected offices at one time). The people elected were largely not even politicians, just regular people. Therefore it shouldn't matter at all - the parent post comes from a position of "the people must be ruled over" and the Montana constitution has a "will of the people" vibe.
  - 3y ago

irrational 3y ago

Breathe without Benadryl? Isn’t Benadryl used for allergies? Allergies come mainly from plants and pollen. Hopefully those won’t be going away as we adopt solar more.

slacka 3y ago
I’m diagnosed as having pollution induced Asthma and allergies to wood smoke. While I need steroids or an N95 mask when the air quality is very poor, Benadryl indeed does help with the symptoms. What value does your comment add by nick picking his comment? The premise of his argument is correct. Fossil fuels kill far more people than renewables and nuclear. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/which-power-sources-are-most-deadly-hint-not-solar-and-wind https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/which-powe...
- irrational 3y ago
  Because even if we went 100% fossil free today, we’d still need Benadryl to breathe.
sophacles 3y ago
> Asthma and allergic diseases cases have risen in recent decades. Plant pollen is considered as the main aeroallergen causing allergic reactions. According to available data, urban residents experience more respiratory allergies than rural residents mainly due to the interaction between chemical air pollutants and pollen grains. From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941124/ There's a lot of research linking the two - particulate matter in the air from burning coal is another allergen related to this.
datavirtue 3y ago
It reduces inflammation in the respiratory track. Relax.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Aunche 3y ago

Everyone is happy when the government throws free money at them. That's why even the most climate denying and self proclaimed "fiscally conservative" politicians will vote for subsidizing new solar jobs in their free state. What people get up and arms about are policies that destroy jobs or make things more expensive. This why all climate-change related legislation is about throwing free money at the problem rather than pricing in the externality in bad environmental practices. Even in the farthest left of politicians only make vague suggestions of a carbon tax because they know that they'd immediately get kicked out of office if they allowed gasoline prices to rise to what they are in Europe, let taxing all sources of greenhouse gases.

jvanderbot 3y ago
"destroy jobs" > Jobs up 95% "more expensive" > free money.
- Aunche 3y ago
  You're acting as if I made a contraction, but I didn't. Montana is getting sued because they aren't destroying jobs, and neither is any other state. The government is granting free money to people who buy solar panels, EVs, etc which is why jobs are being created.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  What are you trying to say?
datavirtue 3y ago
I see people up in arms about massive solar farm installations in Ohio. I'm not sure what the issues are as no one has ever quantified them other than to say "I moved here because of the fields" or "They are gobbling up good farm land for solar panels." You see signs everywhere: "Say NO to Solar!" As an Appalachian I recognize this as a miss. These people could have easily legislated (and still can!) a cut of the energy $$ to themselves. Instead they are trying to burn it all down and will be unsuccessful at it. Where is JD Vance or Mike DeWine on that one? Probably too busy ducking energy policy corruption charges.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

I like green energy as much as the next guy but I think it's hard to know if it's growing organically or growing because the government is spending trillions of dollars on it.

mrguyorama 3y ago
It was growing even under Trump's admin, who was NOT spending trillions on it. China made renewables cheaper than coal.
nomel 3y ago
One aspect is that storage is getting cheaper than peaker plants [1][2], in the "more profit with storage" sense. [1] https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.article... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/natural-gas-in-transition-grid-balancing-tactics-in-flux-as-battery-costs-fall-64822077#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20analysis,plant%20average%20at%20%24173%2FMWh https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights....

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

We were promised cheaper energy. Nothing is cheaper about renewables, and the costs grow ~3% per year. To say nothing of the raw materials demand, requirement of fossil fuels to develop and use 'renewables' and the cost to replace such equipment. For example, battery replacement for EV are outside of affordability for the mass market. And of course, there is the inescapable long term problem of 250MM electric vehicles requiring charge when we're already telling people that they can't charge their EV due to grid constraints. The inconvenient truth is this; there isn't enough raw material on earth to electrify all transportation, upgrade the entire national grid (every line, every transformer, every substation) to meet the demand that an total EV conversion demands, not for 30 years and definitely not by 2030. Saying otherwise is simple wishful thinking. My apologies in advance for offending the perpetual victims in the church of climatology.

hexhexhexagon 3y ago

“the more we move away from burning things for energy, the better” is not self evident. We’ve been burning things for energy since the invention of fire 1 or 2 million years ago. It is a major major factor for how we have built this global civilization that we all benefit from. That said, we moved away from burning fire, not because we ran out of wood, but because we found something more efficient. Currently, hydrocarbons are the single best method of generating and delivering cheap, reliable energy. Only nuclear comes close, but for some stupid reason it is demonized. Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time.

Timon3 3y ago
> Solar and wind serve a purpose, but they’re nowhere near ready to replace hydrocarbons. We should only transition away from hydrocarbons at the point that by doing so, humans flourish more, and not less. This means either we develop a newer, better technology (nuclear nuclear nuclear), or we begin to run out of fossil fuels, which won’t be for a very long time. You are ignoring the main reason we have to move away from burning things for energy: it is making our future selves flourish less. People aren't suggesting to move towards renewables because they look better or because it just feels so nice to use solar energy. The negative externalities from our energy usage today are literally negatively affecting, partially even destroying, our future. If you only look at the present you're ignoring all the problems our current consumption of fossil fuels is introducing. Imagine your grandma is cold. Sure, you can warm her up by setting her house on fire, but it will only help for a short time.
- hexhexhexagon 3y ago
  Technologies like solar and wind are actually very ugly! No one is suggesting moving to them flippantly, and certainly not because of an aesthetic. To the extent that we can make the planet more survivable, fossil fuels is our number one energy source for making that happen, and nothing comes close. I’m a fan of solar and wind, as much as I am of hydroelectric, but they simply can’t handle the demand at their current output. Not to mention, they require energy from the burning of fossil fuels to build their own infrastructure, and then even more to provide the on-demand backups whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow enough. The energy we derive from fossil fuels is precisely why we have thriving civilization and flourishing humans today. Nowhere where fossil fuels are absent do we see such flourishing. That doesn’t mean we should put our heads down and burn burn burn until the planet runs dry. It means we should acknowledge the good and the bad, and work towards a more sustainable future. In my opinion, until we come up with a better way to harness solar energy (which is what hydrocarbons actually are), we can’t lock ourselves into solar panels and batteries. There has to be something more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons. It’s nuclear. Nuclear is the answer. The faster we can get people, countries and continents to adopt nuclear, the faster we can move toward a future where our energy concerns effectively disappear.

nomel 3y ago

> A day ago, there were people > ... I remember reading Any references?