3 ms·

> No one wants to sacrifice their standard of living How about we just get out of the way of renewables? Many jurisdictions are downright hostile and obstructi

by voisin 2y ago

> No one wants to sacrifice their standard of living How about we just get out of the way of renewables? Many jurisdictions are downright hostile and obstructionist for any renewable investment.

oezi 2y ago
Absolutely right! It isn't really clear that fundamental and drastic changes to lifestyle is needed. It just needs some investment in climate friendly energy technologies. On the order of 100-200 trillion USD. Which is roughly 100-200% of global yearly GDP. Or 2-5% of yearly GDP until 2050. This could well be provided by printing money at all the federal reserve banks. This investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts. Without such investments the downstream costs in climate change adaptation will be very expensive.
mezyt 2y ago
> Many jurisdictions are downright hostile and obstructionist for any renewable investment. Right, as long as energy prices are not guaranteed no one is going to invest massively. No one want to be the one having to eat up a 8000$/mwh price like in Texas in the Winter. The 3 month mean volatility of energy prices in Europe is 350% (with peak of more than 1500% in 2009 and 2021). For comparison Bitcoin volatility is 54% in the last 10 years.
- voisin 2y ago
  Could you elaborate on your point I a bit? I think you are making a good point but I am not fully grokking it. Are you looking at the investment on the utility’s level or the individual level? Wouldn’t high variability provide an “insurance justification” for individuals to push solar / battery or similar? Who eats the $8000/mwh currently that wouldn’t be able to justify renewables on just that basis?
ximus 2y ago
at this point we should be pulling on every thread. Individual change is one of them, it should be promoted as well. The amount of frivolous waste I observe at the individual level, multiplied by the millions, is not insignificant.
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  Individual change has been promoted for 40 years if not more. Promoting it isn't fixing the underlying problem, though I'm sure it makes some people feel better about where they stand on the self-sacrifice ladder when they have others to look down on.
  - daemin 2y ago
    It has been suggested that the whole individual change movement was created to distract the populace from the actual big polluters. Like answering the question of "Why do we keep extracting coal and oil?" with "Why don't you look at your own consumption and reduce that first".

by voisin 2y ago

> No one wants to sacrifice their standard of living How about we just get out of the way of renewables? Many jurisdictions are downright hostile and obstructionist for any renewable investment.

oezi 2y ago

Absolutely right! It isn't really clear that fundamental and drastic changes to lifestyle is needed. It just needs some investment in climate friendly energy technologies. On the order of 100-200 trillion USD. Which is roughly 100-200% of global yearly GDP. Or 2-5% of yearly GDP until 2050. This could well be provided by printing money at all the federal reserve banks. This investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts. Without such investments the downstream costs in climate change adaptation will be very expensive.

mezyt 2y ago

> Many jurisdictions are downright hostile and obstructionist for any renewable investment. Right, as long as energy prices are not guaranteed no one is going to invest massively. No one want to be the one having to eat up a 8000$/mwh price like in Texas in the Winter. The 3 month mean volatility of energy prices in Europe is 350% (with peak of more than 1500% in 2009 and 2021). For comparison Bitcoin volatility is 54% in the last 10 years.

voisin 2y ago
Could you elaborate on your point I a bit? I think you are making a good point but I am not fully grokking it. Are you looking at the investment on the utility’s level or the individual level? Wouldn’t high variability provide an “insurance justification” for individuals to push solar / battery or similar? Who eats the $8000/mwh currently that wouldn’t be able to justify renewables on just that basis?

ximus 2y ago

at this point we should be pulling on every thread. Individual change is one of them, it should be promoted as well. The amount of frivolous waste I observe at the individual level, multiplied by the millions, is not insignificant.

ilikehurdles 2y ago
Individual change has been promoted for 40 years if not more. Promoting it isn't fixing the underlying problem, though I'm sure it makes some people feel better about where they stand on the self-sacrifice ladder when they have others to look down on.
- daemin 2y ago
  It has been suggested that the whole individual change movement was created to distract the populace from the actual big polluters. Like answering the question of "Why do we keep extracting coal and oil?" with "Why don't you look at your own consumption and reduce that first".