We should not be making energy expensive for the lay person.
Provide subsidies to build new solar, wind and nuclear farms - sure.
The world will quickly adapt renewable energy if it is much cheaper and convenient to use it.
In similar vein, for god sake don’t tax solar panels above usual tax rate. I’m looking at Arizona.
The biggest mistake any democratic government can make is life more expensive and miserable for their population.
That seldom goes well.
Also see above where I said to build out nuclear asap and at economically significant rates.
When the price of something increases, energy included, alternatives become more attractive. Oil enjoyed strong price insensitivities for a long time, but those days are sunsetting.
Even China is seeing this with their “lying flat” movement. Dowries for a marriage are averaging USD 60,000(per The Economist). So instead men aren’t dating and aren’t doing the 996.
Russia is seeing it in European nations building LNG infrastructure at their major ports and taking deliveries from overseas. That’s a long term loss of business. And those same European nations are incentivizing their citizens to replace heaters with heatpumps and other means of reducing fossil fuel use.
When prices and costs increase people are incentivized to decide to go with alternatives.
Is it something like a downvoted comment? I fail to see a downvote button (which I am happy about).
I've found HN pretty divided when it comes topics like energy/climate/electric vehicles, immigration and foreign policy.
Before I used to feel bad, now I somewhat expect to be downvoted bringing up anything that doesn't fit someone's worldview.
I lived a decade in Seattle, WA which is a strong blue/liberal state as it goes. Sometimes pretty extreme. Now I am in Florida which is now a solid red state since Trump. It's interesting to see how the thought bubbles and world views have formed.
>That seldom goes well.
We are the richest nation in the world, so calling life "miserable" is hyperbole beyond belief. You talk about this like it's a new problem.
We have been trying to get a carbon tax since literally 1992, but the response is always the type of nonsense your suggesting, which is designed to be feel-good bs.
If we want to stop climate change, we have to change our behavior, period. We could have done that slowly, but we chose to not do it at all.
If you're worried about life being miserable... buckle up.
It would be fine if it didn't prevent me from replying. But since it does, it feels exactly like you covering my mouth while you yell in my face.
It surely doesn't make me think that I should vote for solar. If anything it makes me sure that people aren't doing any critical thinking. Aren't interested in scientific debate. And are simply pushing a marketing agenda without discussion. The Nazis did the same thing. I'll take CO2 over a world where we can't speak any day. It inspires me to rally against solar. Surely if it was scientifically sound it would be easy to defend without covering my mouth?
Go ahead and downvote again. It says everything I need to know about YC and HN and the kind of regard that you people have for human life, which is apparently none.
An echo chamber of lies and self serving agenda. Certainly not a place for science. And definitely not for the betterment of the environment. It's disgusting in short.
But let's take it. So the assumption is that there is an alternative that is better than gasoline. Nuclear is largely dominant on the coasts and gasoline usage is roughly half for goods delivery across the middle of the country where everything is coal powered. So at least for the moment, do you prefer reliance on gasoline or coal for goods delivery?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...
And yes, imagine what this would look like at $20 a gallon :/