It’s not polemic and talking about a past we can’t change, but showing a clear and impossible to miss pattern.
You say yourself that moving away from car centric mobility was possible 50 years ago and that hydropower was (yes, not for every country because it’s dependent on geography) was possible. And what did most countries do instead? They went hard for more burning of fossil fuels instead and at immense costs, too. Because lobbyists told them that the transition isn’t possible. And if it is, then it’s far too expensive. And really needs to be planned slow and meticulous to have any chance of success. And then they did basically nothing.
That is the exact same stuff the exact same lobbyists tell you today and you parrot it.
Sorry, but if you can’t even see it when explicitly pointed that direction, then you are indeed an idiot and part of the problem.
Like I said, you can delve for ages in the past, then get nihilistic and then prevent change in the present. Or you can have a look at reality and see that the energy mix for electricity has changed massively. Fossil fuels (all of them together) stand at 25% of the mix across the EU and also absolute capacities in TWh have substantially decreased. And this is already with renewables compensating for reduced nuclear power plant output (something that can be debated on its own from various directions).
Overall energy beyond electricity is rapidly changing too. We are seeing a big rise in solar power, heat distribution systems in urban areas and a big push for heat exchanger systems running on electricity for home heating. Fossile fuels for heating are phased out in many countries entirely.
Are there lobbyists working against that? Sure. But supporting that transition doesn’t mean one has to demand the entirely polemic and unrealistic position that one should not secure fossil fuels needed even in the most rapid transition scenario. You are talking about slippery slope, yet I have yet to hear a clear word from you want alternative there is to that in the real world without running into a state of emergency with energy shortages.
Ad hominem attacks are not strengthening your case.
I don’t need to strengthen my case. You are -either willfully or stupidly- ignoring the arguments I told you to repeat again and again your propaganda-induced delusion of how a faster transition isn’t possible. That is EXACTLY THE SAME LIE TOLD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS NOW.
Your argument is that change is perpetually prevented by slippery slope lobbying. Yet that change is happening as we speak (within 4 years for example the share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the EU has decreased from 38% to 28%), even if it needed way too long to get started. You don’t see the contradiction? I was merely stating the fact that remaining demand has to be secured in the short term, you are not even clear about it if you deny that. Even with the most rapid change you don’t just stop using fossil fuels from one month to the next. You can come with all the slippery slope you like but that is simply a reality, unless you favor hard change with energy shutdowns etc.
It remains unclear of what you mean by faster transition. I was never saying that it is impossible to fasten the process. Unless you want to speed up transition to complete fossil fuel independence to “over night” overnight, there is need for continued fossil fuel supply.
It’s not polemic and talking about a past we can’t change, but showing a clear and impossible to miss pattern.
You say yourself that moving away from car centric mobility was possible 50 years ago and that hydropower was (yes, not for every country because it’s dependent on geography) was possible. And what did most countries do instead? They went hard for more burning of fossil fuels instead and at immense costs, too. Because lobbyists told them that the transition isn’t possible. And if it is, then it’s far too expensive. And really needs to be planned slow and meticulous to have any chance of success. And then they did basically nothing.
That is the exact same stuff the exact same lobbyists tell you today and you parrot it.
Sorry, but if you can’t even see it when explicitly pointed that direction, then you are indeed an idiot and part of the problem.
Like I said, you can delve for ages in the past, then get nihilistic and then prevent change in the present. Or you can have a look at reality and see that the energy mix for electricity has changed massively. Fossil fuels (all of them together) stand at 25% of the mix across the EU and also absolute capacities in TWh have substantially decreased. And this is already with renewables compensating for reduced nuclear power plant output (something that can be debated on its own from various directions).
Overall energy beyond electricity is rapidly changing too. We are seeing a big rise in solar power, heat distribution systems in urban areas and a big push for heat exchanger systems running on electricity for home heating. Fossile fuels for heating are phased out in many countries entirely.
Are there lobbyists working against that? Sure. But supporting that transition doesn’t mean one has to demand the entirely polemic and unrealistic position that one should not secure fossil fuels needed even in the most rapid transition scenario. You are talking about slippery slope, yet I have yet to hear a clear word from you want alternative there is to that in the real world without running into a state of emergency with energy shortages.
Ad hominem attacks are not strengthening your case.
I don’t need to strengthen my case. You are -either willfully or stupidly- ignoring the arguments I told you to repeat again and again your propaganda-induced delusion of how a faster transition isn’t possible. That is EXACTLY THE SAME LIE TOLD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS NOW.
Ok, now screaming after ad hominem.
Your argument is that change is perpetually prevented by slippery slope lobbying. Yet that change is happening as we speak (within 4 years for example the share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the EU has decreased from 38% to 28%), even if it needed way too long to get started. You don’t see the contradiction? I was merely stating the fact that remaining demand has to be secured in the short term, you are not even clear about it if you deny that. Even with the most rapid change you don’t just stop using fossil fuels from one month to the next. You can come with all the slippery slope you like but that is simply a reality, unless you favor hard change with energy shutdowns etc.
It remains unclear of what you mean by faster transition. I was never saying that it is impossible to fasten the process. Unless you want to speed up transition to complete fossil fuel independence to “over night” overnight, there is need for continued fossil fuel supply.