Quote (Black XistenZ @ 7 Nov 2019 10:19)
For example calls for "complete decarbonization/100% renewables by the year 2030", which is just not technologically feasible.
Another case of hysteria is when governments engage in a planned economy of sorts in their push for electric cars, not being technologically open ("electric cars are the future, fuck hydrogen, fuck fuel cells, fuck hybrid motors, all government funding and subsidies will go to EVs").
I support all measures which dont cost us a lot (in terms of economic output, jobs or comfort) while being positive for the climate.
I support all measures where sizable costs yield overproportional gains for the climate.
I support attemts at "maxing out" the potential of renewables on a local level.
I support the use of modern nuclear power to provide base power that's carbon-free.
I support removing subsidies and tax breaks for fossil vehicles and power.
So, to name just one example: I support massively expanding solar cells in places like Arizona or Northern Africa, and changing most vehicles to electric ones in these places. But I consider anyone gullible who thinks that solar, wind and EVs will ever be able to fully replace fossil technology in less sunny, less warm and more densely populated places like Germany or the Northeastern United States. Therefore, I reject government policies which force us to abandon fossil technologies altogether before adequate technological replacement is available.
i asked you about concrete policies that were
already in place that were unreasonable, and you resort to the lame talking points about the people who are pushing for change.
claiming 'it's just not feasible' is no reason not to try - IF you actually think that the general idea behind it, the transition towards renewable energy, is the right direction.
btw, focusing subsidies on one specific field while largely ignoring promising others might not be the ideal approach, but it certainly does not equal 'planned economy' - by that standard we'd all be living in 'planned economies' for decades.
i asked whose policies you support, and you didn't name a single politician. you constantly attack those that address the issue (even though it's at least in a DIRECTION that you pretend to favour, just without the 'hysteria') - but not once have i seen you criticise those that are beholden to fossil fuel and keep approving the hundreds of billions those industries receives in tax payer dollars each year.
and again, formulating and setting ambitious goals does NOT translate to 'forcefully abandoning' proven technolgy, if serious and drastic efforts to replace them won't be as successful as intended. they have to be a deliberate and purposeful efforts though, that's why you have to aim high. of course that will be difficult, after all it's a process, a transition, and obviously it won't happen over night - but that appeaser and doubter approach is undermining it from the get go.
i can only reiterate: the best we can do is
limit the damage, we simply don't have time to hide behind excuses as to why it's too bothersome and inconvenient to start right now.
it's just strange that all the policians and parties that you actually support, both domestically and internationally, are all firmly in the denier / sceptics / appeaser camp, directly opposing, or at the very least undermining all the measures that you allegedly support. funny how that works...
This post was edited by fender on Nov 7 2019 04:19am