3 ms·
This article reads like green propaganda. Very few people are falling for this stuff anymore. You can only go so far destroying the landscape in southern Europ
by wtcactus 1y ago
This article reads like green propaganda.
Very few people are falling for this stuff anymore. You can only go so far destroying the landscape in southern Europe replacing thousands of olive trees by “green” solar panels, before the population calls out the insanity and vote for parties that are against it, no matter how bad are some of their other policies.
- mousethatroared 1y agoArguments by aesthetics fare poorly in forums where a large portion of the folks would replace humans with AI. We're the end stage of utilitarianism: getting rid of centuries old C3 energy producers of alkanes because the grove is "inefficient" and loudly extolling the beauty of pieces of black glass. The solutions to the energy problems are largely solved and have been since the 70s, conservation. Meanwhile, guys like Gates have been bemoaning cow's rectal emissions while AI (ie Microsoft, of which he is a major shareholder) is becoming the larger consumer of energy to train AI.
- pfdietz 1y agoRight, nuclear is obviously superior, so no need to subsidize it, right? It will win on its obvious merits! That was the argument you were going to make, right? I mean, why subsidize the winner? /s
- wtcactus 1y agoWell, it’s interesting how your sense of sarcasms didn’t detect the obvious need for it when talking about all the subsides solar farms have compared to all the extra taxes gas/oil/coal get. Isn’t it? The thing is, you will be one of the first complaining about how undemocratic our governments are, when the Western world turns completely right. Now, that is be good sarcasm. People like you explaining that the the will of the majority is undemocratic.
- uecker 1y agoThe will of the majority can very well be undemocratic has history shows which makes certain fascist movements dangerous. But I do not think the western world will turn completely to the right.
- spauldo 1y agoApply the same argument for mass transit. Sometimes the desired outcome (less of the countryside being covered in solar panels, wind farms, or giant pit mines, in this case) isn't most economically efficient. It's up to the people whether it's worth spending tax money to achieve this. I personally don't mind wind and solar farms (or nuclear, for that matter), but my region isn't what anyone would consider "scenic."
- Timon3 1y agoIf we apply the same argument for mass transit, we also have to be fair and apply it for individual transit. Or are you under the impression that's not subsidized? It usually receives far higher subsidies than mass transit!
- spauldo 1y agoNot sure how that changes my point.
- Timon3 1y agoAll forms of transit require subsidies, but the same doesn't go for all forms of power generation. That makes it a bad comparison.
- spauldo 1y agoNo, they don't, actually. You can choose not to subsidize mass transit, and as a result you'll have little to none of it. Which is fine, if you want all that not having mass transit entails, such as more traffic and less mobility for the poor. You can choose not to subsidize nuclear, in which case you'll get more windmills and solar farms. This is exactly what the person you originally replied to doesn't want.
- Timon3 1y agoIt seems you didn't quite understand my point. You can remove the subsidies of nuclear and solar, in which case solar is still profitable. If you remove the subsidies of mass transit and individual transit, neither is profitable anymore.