Nope. Yawn
I'm not the only poster who called you out on the post in question. I guess we're all wrong and you're right?
But then I remember, if no one understands what you meant, maybe it's your language that wasn't quite right.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nope. Yawn
I'm not the only poster who called you out on the post in question. I guess we're all wrong and you're right?
But then I remember, if no one understands what you meant, maybe it's your language that wasn't quite right.
I'm fine with the idea of comparing costs, but we have to be honest with both alternatives. So, for example, what will be the cost when Miami is under water?
By no means do I think that converting to new energy approaches will be cheap. But for the last 100 years we've been postponing the long-term expenses of fossil fuels and pretending that they're cheaper than they are. In other words, if we zoom way out and limit ourselves to solutions that are sustainable in the long run - over the course of centuries - then our use of fossil fuels has been fundamentally dishonest. We've known for decades that we would - for practical purposes - run out of fossil fuels soon. And if we zoom out, then arguments about estimates being off by a few decades are not helpful.
So by all means, let's analyze costs, but let's do it from a useful perspective.
It seems I dodged a bullet when I bought a petrol car in preference to an EV.
@Shad How about you up your game and don't waste everyone's time with basic fallacy arguments?
@Shad
You know I was thinking about this, and I must confess I made an error in categorizing your fallacy argument. Upon further reflection, I think your argument was more of a "causal fallacy" than a "false dilemma".
So what's your take? Do you think we'll keep discovering more oil? What do you propose we do to continue to getting energy?
https://www.crowdstrike.com/wp-content/brochures/FancyBearTracksUkrainianArtillery.pdf
Get a dictionary yet? Your assertions of a fallacy still fails as you do not understand basic definitions of words
How much of the Earths resources including gas & oil are being wasted on manufacturing, installing, maintaining, removing and decommissioning renewable energy generating equipment and all the associated infrastructure.
Data
Some.
But again, what do you propose we do?
Have you carried out any research into United Nations Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030?
If so, do you find them concerning?
If the national government of France is a signatory and promotes nationwide programs in support of the goals of Agenda 21, it would explain the rising of the Yellow vest movement.
Yellow vests movement - Wikipedia
Okay, I skimmed the wikipedia article. I think I've already claimed that fuel prices have been unsustainably low for decades. If not, I'll claim that now. As the world's supply of oil decreases, prices will go up. It sounds like the French government has NOT done a good job of spreading the pain of increased fuel prices across all of France's economic spectrum, but that bit of poor governing is independent of this discussion, no?
Again, I propose rerouting ALL of our energy subsidies in the direction of fusion research and renewables research, and not a penny more towards subsidizing big oil - which is quite profitable without any assistance from governments.
So NaN - what do you propose?
Fuel prices may have been unsustainably low for decades in your country but not in the UK.
Did you skim this?
Data
How much of the Earths resources including gas & oil are being wasted on manufacturing, installing, maintaining, removing and decommissioning renewable energy generating equipment and all the associated infrastructure.
Data
Less low in the UK, but still unsustainable.
As for the "data" link, let's just take an obvious case: How much longer do you think we can use oil as a major source of energy? 20 years? 50? 100? 1000?
You are overlooking that consumption of those resources is a problem due to being a common fuel instead of a specialized resource.
Because people are short-sighted, selfish and greedy, especially when the almighty dollar is involved.Well if you want the answer to that question , you should ask yourself why aren't they on board?
I mean nobody's going to stick around in a fire, because fire is obvious and people react.
Either the evidence presented for global warming has to be even more convincing than it already is, or we would just have to wait to the Earth literally 'ignites' in order to get full cooperation to address the issue.
If we are going to take man-made climate change seriously, let’s start by banning all commercial flights.
We have no choice but to do something.My point is this, doing what some say needs to be done is going to be brutally expensive and brutally difficult.
The entire world needs to sacrifice on a scale not seen before.
Now, throw in the 12 years that some say these things must be done within. It is an impossible proposition for many, many reasons.
Is there a true evaluation that determines the amount of man made carbon that is accelerating an apparent natural weather change cycle ?
Is there a valid, reliable, consensus that these massive sacrifices will even work in the short term ?
So the question isn´t ultimately about money, that is just part of it. The question is CAN it be done, and WILL it make any difference. ?
I hear platitudes like yours, and most are valid, but they say nothing about the reality of achieving the goal.
Is it hype ? Is it real ?
I will go along with the program regardless of these questions, but what is the program ?
China has the second largest economy in the world, and they and India are the greatest poulluters in the world.
Why is China exempt from dire emission control because they are a developing country ? That is pure idiocy.
Choking the US to death is not going to change China, or India, or Africa or other Asian nations, or the contribute much in reduction of Co2. The US and Western Europe have already reduced co2 emissions on a grand scale.
Do you see a problem here ?