Submitted by antifascistpotor in Green

My criticism green new deal The difficulty here is that "tech" matters not a lot, what matters is how cheap and energy dense the fuel is, and electricity is not a fuel, it is a transmission technology. Light from the sun for solar cells and wind or water for turbines are fuels, and they cost zero, but:

  • They are intermittent, cannot be stored (light, wind) or are only available in a few places (water).
  • Electricity as a transmissions technology is not very suitable for vehicles (batteries are expensive, don't last long, are very polluting, and heavy and bulky).
  • The capital costs are huge. Currently the capital costs look lower only because the manufacturing of turbines and solar cells is in effect powered and subsidized by coal/gas/oil. The only fuels that compete with fossil fuels so far are radioactive metals (U, Pu, Th), and because they are very poisonous the capital costs are also huge. My current best (and likely optimistic) guess is that switching out of fossil fuels would cut living standards to the level they had in 1900-1920, which is currently considered below poverty level.

Does this forum support cutting living standards to that level?

Fossil fuels probably account for around 90-95% of our current living standards, and replacing them with more expensive, less energy dense fuels to the point that the fossil fuel lobby were seriously weakened would cut the living standards of most people quite a lot. That "Green New Deal" is a very nice illusion unfortunately.

Giving precise estimates is pretty much impossible, but that does not mean that all estimates are worthless. Form some details of how important are fossil fuels as to living standards:

The better alternative would be to ensure that the fossil fuel industry were not controlled by rapacious and reckless rentiers, but that would be quite a big battle.



You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote (edited )

what makes you think anyone here gives a shit about the policies of a faction of a US political party?

Does this forum support cutting living standards to that level?

no, I'd go much, much further


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'd guess:

  • Anybody here who's bothered to look into it will tell you that the green new deal is trash.
  • Most of us don't think that green advanced technology is even possible. The stickied post on f/Tech is probably a baseline for engagement for us on that front, but there's more to be said about it.

From there, there is a whole world of systemic critique that engages the system of civilisation as a cluster of hierarchy-forming, growth-oriented/colonial, and ecocidal processes.


Fool wrote (edited )

Does this forum support cutting living standards to that level?

Abolish living standards.

Presumption of base rates of exploitation to unseen masses should not be standardized. Furthermore by creating expectations limits enjoyment of what is available.


arronfrancis wrote

Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a complex challenge with economic and environmental consequences. While concerns about living standards are valid, it's crucial to address these issues through careful planning, research, and international cooperation to build a sustainable future.


Pernick wrote

Does this forum support cutting living standards to that level?

What is the alternative? Outside of some techno-optimist future where we find a cheap source of energy storage, we don't have a choice but cut fossil fuels usage and cease destroying the climate.

Countries with high living standards built a way of life based on colonial extraction of fossil fuels, and that way of life is dying, if not dead. Time to go back to how others are living.