3 ms·

Because the global goal of all that is the CO2 emissions that we emit today. I'm perfectly fine that we start big plans to build many new nuclear and renew

Because the global goal of all that is the CO2 emissions that we emit __today__. I'm perfectly fine that we start big plans to build many new nuclear and renewable plants, but __today__ we need to emit less CO2, now. CO2 just add up in the atmosphere and don't degrade in the time we have. SO, in the quota we need to respect, I prefer to ensure that the today capacity we have of "clean energy" are used for a proper usage better than allocating the current clean, and upcoming clean ones to some Google servers that are used to generate AI images for fun. If your house is on fire you don't use the water you have to fill up your pool, you actually need to turn off the fire, even if you will have more water soon.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> prefer to ensure that the today capacity we have of "clean energy" are used for a proper usage better than allocating the current clean, and upcoming clean ones to some Google servers that are used to generate AI images for fun You’re proposing capping economic growth to save the planet. Admirable. But with tremendous, almost guaranteed, capacity for backlash. Empirically, growing economies green faster because while we should treat climate change as an existential crisis, we don’t, we treat it as a luxury. > If your house is on fire you don't use the water you have to fill up your pool, you actually need to turn off the fire, even if you will have more water soon The house isn’t on fire. It’s settling wrong. It won’t burn us in minutes but bury us in decades. The analogy is in quitting your job to start repairs even though you don’t have the cash on hand to finish them.
jsnell 2y ago
Oh, so your objection isn't to them buying green energy, it's to them buying electricity at all? Google and Microsoft are clearly more effective users of energy than many other commercial users, i.e. creating more value per watt spent. In a situation where you're going to snap your fingers and killing companies or entire industries by refusing to sell them electricity, you don't want to go for the efficient energy users. You want to go after the ones where the energy is adding the least marginal value.

Because the global goal of all that is the CO2 emissions that we emit __today__. I'm perfectly fine that we start big plans to build many new nuclear and renew

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> prefer to ensure that the today capacity we have of "clean energy" are used for a proper usage better than allocating the current clean, and upcoming clean ones to some Google servers that are used to generate AI images for fun You’re proposing capping economic growth to save the planet. Admirable. But with tremendous, almost guaranteed, capacity for backlash. Empirically, growing economies green faster because while we should treat climate change as an existential crisis, we don’t, we treat it as a luxury. > If your house is on fire you don't use the water you have to fill up your pool, you actually need to turn off the fire, even if you will have more water soon The house isn’t on fire. It’s settling wrong. It won’t burn us in minutes but bury us in decades. The analogy is in quitting your job to start repairs even though you don’t have the cash on hand to finish them.

jsnell 2y ago

Oh, so your objection isn't to them buying green energy, it's to them buying electricity at all? Google and Microsoft are clearly more effective users of energy than many other commercial users, i.e. creating more value per watt spent. In a situation where you're going to snap your fingers and killing companies or entire industries by refusing to sell them electricity, you don't want to go for the efficient energy users. You want to go after the ones where the energy is adding the least marginal value.