TheDoughAbidesI have to agree with R-ED. The best, and possibly only, way to fix this shitstorm is by consuming less energy. All of the energy we consume inevitably messes with the global energy balance no matter how we make it. It fucking sucks but its the truth for now.
This is the fallacy promoted by the 1970s "environmental" movement against nuclear power. The leaders of that movement believed that more abundant energy would cause human overrun of nature and inhibit preservation, so they convinced people to fear nuclear power, which at the time was still believed to make electricity "too cheap to meter."
This is obviously bullshit. Sustainability, efficiency, and recycling are important, but they are not the only issue in today's energy and climate crisis. Thinking that way neglects so many other aspects related to energy production and accessibility to resources. In the US, so many people sit on their high horses and preach "energy conservation". They talk about how much good they do by turning the lights off in their houses and installing new insulation, but don't understand that the first-world amenities they depend on draw massively more energy and resources than they could hope to impact.
History tells us that the world is not going to slow down. It is not fair to ask third world countries to slow down. Our perspective of the planet's health is not more important than people's access to electricity and clean cooking facilities, especially when those making the argument for "conservation" have leftovers in the refrigerator, reliable clean water, and baseload power. Without those amenities, people die
today, not in 100 years when we've fucked the Earth.
Within those constraints, I believe we have two options: (1) we need to develop
economically viable forms of clean energy that can be useful on a large scale worldwide; (2) artificially adjust markets so that clean energy becomes competitive. I think we should pursue both. #gonuclear
