Environment & Energy

...certainly old enough to know that there is no "energy transition" and the result of the war, besides blowing people up, is to deprive poor people of energy.

We have been burning more coal, more gas, and more oil than ever.

As for solar, rich people can afford to buy natural gas and coal based electricity when the sun goes down, and they do. Some of them buy batteries, however, and brag about being off grid, this at a cost to human slaves as described in the book I'm currently reading, the contents of which I've long been aware but is filled with illuminating anecdotes of how the "renewable energy" slaves live:

The Elements of Power

Subtitle:

Unlike the antinukes around here, and the "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes around here, I give a shit about human poverty.

It is true that a lack of access to oil and gas is having a positive climate effect, reflected in the data at the Mauna Loa CO₂ observatory on the rate of the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, small but visible, but unlike antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes, I am less interested in rich people investing in semiconductor junk that will be landfill in 20 years, than I am in human rights.

An antinuke cheering for war is entirely consistent with the ethical level one can clearly recognize in them.

Rich people glibly cheering for the deprivation of the poor is hardly something unique to these times, but it's rather sad to see at DU.