The Green War on Clean Energy

https://www.city-journal.org/green-war-on-clean-energy

by fortran77 • 4 years ago

27 20 4 years ago

I hate articles like this. The thesis is basically that radical activists have a platform which would never work to achieve reasonable policy goals. Well no shit. That's not the purpose of radical advocacy.

The underlying assumption of the author, which is so naively incorrect as to almost surely be in bad faith, is that groups like XR have the ultimate goal or function of taking over the apparatus of government (or society or whatever) and implementing an agenda. Their ultimate goal is to exert pressure on the policy and societal paradigms by pushing against broad assumptions that nobody else in the space is willing to challenge.

One thing that is mentioned here is degrowth. That's a great example: We have activists saying that if the precept of infinite economic growth is getting in the way of the climate goal, we should reconsider our assumptions about growth. This is a key element to honest intellectual/political discourse but it doesn't map onto a policy at all. An idea is that in some later political cycle, we will have a decision-maker who studied degrowth and found it more persuasive than yolo capitalism and fashions a responsive policy platform.

Articles like this are akin to an argument that we should close universities because people can't eat books. Return to farming! It's the only thing guaranteed to put food on the table!

TheLoafOfBread5• 4 years ago

People will be using green and ecological products, if such products will be better or at least comparable than what common folks currently have. No amount of hissy fits on demonstrations will change that. No amount of temper tantrums with gluing yourself to a road will change that. No amount of destroyed art for your virtue signaling will change that.

Schroedingersat3• 4 years ago

Solar has been affordable compared to fossil fuels and has had the benefits of mass production available to reduce costs for over a century (see george cove). We just spend endless amounts on subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear.We've also had energy reduction measures like insulation or more efficient heating or sodium lamps for lighting or electrified transport or heat pumps for decades or centuries. The current renewed push for nuclear is just a way to make sure the green energy money is spent as inefficiently as possible to keep gas and coal viable for another decade or two and to keep centralized middle men in power after fossil fuels become se economically irrelevant that trillions in subsidies can't keep them afloat.

TheLoafOfBread5• 4 years ago

That's not true, there are no subsidies for fossil fuels in Europe, just massive taxes, starting with 60% tax on fuels.

Solar is not being used by general population because installation costs are high, with battery even higher and then it is usable only during the summer and you need to be connected to the grid, because you would run out of energy during winter. Additionally you need space for solar installation, which is kind of hard to get when you are living in an apartment, as 50% of Europeans do.

b3nji• 4 years ago

Are there not subsidies for Solar?

rawTruthHurts2• 4 years ago

And there goes the usual overly simplistic and naive understanding the issues XR and such try to raise awareness of.

TheLoafOfBread5• 4 years ago

Imagine a politician doing a campaign by constantly annoying its voters. That would definitely guarantee a win. /s

What XR is doing is counterproductive as normal folks will just label them as deranged ecoterrorists living in their parent's basement and have no idea how real world works and that bills needs to be paid or you will end up on the streets.

Only thing which XR is doing is to raise anger when moderate greens will try to come up with rational policies. They can't. XR already turned it into emotionally charged debate.

public_defender3• 4 years ago

Assuming this comment is true, it's a pretty elegant argument for the necessity of regulation. If the most efficient consumer products are deleterious to the environment, they need to be regulated or banned until they are no longer the best purchase option. Markets can't solve this issue because the incentives are cross-aligned.

TheLoafOfBread5• 4 years ago

If your regulated replacement is unaffordable for poor people (which are majority in the society), they will vote for populists, who will build their raise to power on cancelation of such regulations. That's the reason why aggressive green policies will not propel us forward, but will eventually implode under social pressure.

pjc503• 4 years ago

No amount of destroyed art

Let's hope the art can survive the 4C warming then.

The "no change, cheapest option only" view has long term consequences which will also be bad for people. This is why "red-green" politics is such a common match: there will be costs, but we need to ensure they are borne by people who can afford them.

The Green War on Clean Energy

Related Stories