this is often gasoline and coal. the market knows full well that is most energy dense reliable and cheap. and especially markets in developing countries and china where they dont care about our rich person concerns
Seriously?? I'll give you an analogy: rubbing alcohol is far cheaper to buy than Jack Daniels, and will get you every bit as tipsy as you'd hope to be with the more expensive stuff. But the true COST of something is not just its price, but its after effects and the costs of clean up. THAT'S what missing from your simplistic argument. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are NOT less expensive in the long run.
the problem with this point is that the long run is something you imagine, and something considered by computer simulations. anything involving the stock market, or the economy, or the climate or complex systems like these, they are by nature unpredictable. plus the climate question isnt just about the climate but its about the economy, human development, our ability to adapt, etc. its very complex and it cannot be usefully predicted. for all we know a totalitarian green new deal would be a net negative for the environment. at the moment, all we can say about cheap fossil fuel energy is that the industrial era it has enabled has resulted in the greatest destruction of poverty in human history.
You are stupid. Rubbing alcohol will kill you. Secondly we don’t yet know the true cost and pollution contribution of many of the so called eco friendly products. The damage by mining lithium and other rare earths. The cost of disposal of batteries and other equipment isn’t factored. Frankly I’m betting the total contribution of natural gas with carbon capture and storage is more effective and cheaper than solar and wind. BTW nuclear added in is even more positive to the environment and our prosperity.
exactly, all these goddamn batteries are an environmental cost i had no considered. this factor, and a billion others are something we cant know about how it will affect us in the future. so lets just try to keep pollution in check enough to keep the skies blue, and be cautious about how much economic intervention we think is justified. for all we know when we subsidize X, it incentives Y, which fucks us over in way Z we never considered.
That doesn’t mean you should be satisfied with the status quo. We need to continually search for and develop better ways to do things. This includes power generation, transmission and usage. As the world develops we will require more and more energy.
it seems fairly obvious the nuclear is the future and any hesitation going nuclear is dumb wasted opportunity
Exactly my point. Fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses will kill millions with droughts, floods, rising sea level, fires, harm to agriculture.... And we certainly DO know that solar and wind and geothermal are less pollutive than fossil fuels.
