Certainly tradeoffs do not discredit a proposal wholesale. That's true, and it's beside the point. This thread is also beside the point. The relevant sphere is

Certainly tradeoffs do not discredit a proposal wholesale. That's true, and it's beside the point. This thread is also beside the point. The relevant sphere is the general public discourse, which is largely naive and unexamined. This is not at all to insult the public, but to critique the narrative that dominates the public mindshare. The premise that we "need to switch to renewable energy sources" is what is in question. What is it that we want do with that energy? Are "renewables" really renewable if they require a massive expansion in mining of non-renewable materials? Have we really something we ought to call a "solution" if it prolongs our war on earth-borne life? We don't simply have a hydrocarbon problem. We have a deep and profound dilemma and a mass psychosis of global proportion. The application of tidy concepts like "problem" and "solution" to the former are symptomatic of the latter.