• Ilya B Shambat
    194
    One claim that I've heard from opponents of clean energy is that oil is progress and that clean energy is stagnation. This claim is a Big Lie. Progress does not consist of ongoing reliance on destructive, resource-intensive technologies. It consists of moving toward better technologies; smarter technologies; technologies that are more brain-intensive and less resource-intensive.

    Technologies that will fulfil people's needs at present or greater levels with fewer destructive effects.

    What business-affiliated people who are against clean energy do not understand is that clean energy is good for business. It will make more money than oil and coal. As for oil, it will last longer and be used to produce value-added products like styrofoams, plastics and pharmaceuticals. Which means that in the long run it will even be good for oil companies themselves.

    Then there is the claim that clean energy is attractive to people with Marxist associations. That it well should be. There were many people who were attracted to Marxism for right reasons. They were not attracted to it because they wanted freebies; they were attracted to it because they did not like to see workers treated like dirt. Communism was a wrong solution, and I have written a detailed deconstruction of Marxist ideology (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/refuting-marxism-once-and-for-all). However many of these people were coming from rightful considerations. With clean energy there will be a large field in which these people can work while remaining true to their rightful ideals. They will be less likely to become disaffected or parasitical and will instead become constructive, productive citizens.

    We also hear the claim that global warming is some kind of a liberal ploy for a government takeover of the economy. This is absolutely ridiculous. Clean energy can be just as easily put into place by business as by the government. To me the issue of who puts it into place is incidental. I don't care whether it's done by government or by business for as long as it is done.

    These same people then claim that they have family values or that they are Christians. They have the right to neither such claim. A person who actually has family values will not be leaving the world in a worse shape than he has found. A person who actually is a Christian will not be destroying what God has created and what he cannot re-create. And as a dedicated father and a practicing Christian, I will do everything in my power that my daughter does not inherit a toxic hell.

    Clean energy is not only good for the planet. It is also good for the economy, and it is good for our children. And anyone who lays any claim on any such values does not only have the right, but has the duty, to support and do what he can to implement clean energy.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    A case can be made that it's not so much about clean energy as it is about using resources wisely. Fossil fuel is a problem not because it's inherently bad for the environment but because it's being used excessively. It appears that any and all energy, given human folly, will eventually become unclean. Your post serves as evidence for this. Afterall aren't you talking about the economy which shows where the true interests of humans lie.
  • Shamshir
    855
    One claim that I've heard from opponents of clean energy is that oil is progress and that clean energy is stagnation. This claim is a Big Lie.Ilya B Shambat
    Obviously, and no one truly thinks otherwise.

    If you had people choose between a car that runs on oil, and a car that runs on anti-gravity, the few who choose to run their car on oil would only choose oil, because they enjoy the smell or something similar; not due to efficiency.

    Clean energy is wholly better, unless you enjoy soot and pungent smells; and some do.
    Such is the planet of the apes.

    It appears that any and all energy, given human folly, will eventually become unclean dangerous.TheMadFool
    Radiation isn't unclean - it's powerful and warrants great responsibility; for instance. :ok:
  • MattS
    5
    What business-affiliated people who are against clean energy do not understand is that clean energy is good for business. It will make more money than oil and coal. As for oil, it will last longer and be used to produce value-added products like styrofoams, plastics and pharmaceuticals. Which means that in the long run it will even be good for oil companies themselves.Ilya B Shambat

    That fails the economics litmus test. Energy is an input into everything that we as a country produce. Raising the price of energy means the price of every good goes up and thus the purchasing power of every American goes down. Put another way, everyone gets poorer. This is not good for the consumers who now can buy less for their dollar and it's not good for the companies who now have less buyers for their products since consumers have less disposal income to spend on them. The resulting effect is massive job losses across the board as companies scale back production and need less people since there are less buyers for their goods due to those buyers having less income to spend. That's not good for society.

    Also, to say that oil's use in producing energy is not value added is not correct - it enables the production of literally everything manufactured. There's no greater value add than that. And to argue that clean energy would be good for oil companies who would see >90% of their revenues (and profits) evaporate if oil's use for energy simply stopped one day just doesn't make sense.

    Here's an additional thought to ponder. If (when) we get to the point where oil supplies start to dwindle, the price of oil will necessarily rise. That higher price will hugely incentivize research and innovation to find sufficient substitutes, and better alternatives will come into fruition at that point. No need for government intervention to allow all of this to happen. It will happen naturally in a free market. But there's a difference in this scenario. Left to market forces, it might be another 100-200 years before oil supplies dwindle due to innovative ways being discovered to extract more of it from the earth (IE: the shale oil boom). That's 100-200 years that we can enjoy and reap the benefits of the cheapest energy possible, continuing a booming economy flush with extra money due to cheap energy that can be used to continue to improve society in the form of healthcare innovations, technology innovations, and general overall improvements to the human condition - improvements that our descendants will benefit from and improvements that would be muted to some degree (perhaps significant) if higher energy costs were foisted on the public today by the government.

    None of this addresses the climate change topic. Your mileage may vary on that topic depending on how apocalyptic you think that is and how limited you think mankind's ability is to find some innovative solution to it that doesn't involve eliminating all fossil fuels.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.