Two critical responses to the #climateemergency:
1. Keep fossil fuels in the ground.
2. Switch to renewables for energy production.
Everyone agree? OK, then where's the energy going to come from to do #2 without fossil fuel extraction?
Some thoughts....
-
Show this thread
-
A worldwide, rapid switch to renewables will require immense amounts of production, transportation, etc. Think: windwills, solar panels, batteries, and so on. The energy to do all that? Largely based on fossil fuels. So....
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
If we really believe in: 1. Keep fossil fuels in the ground. 2. Switch to renewables for energy production. We should be calling on everyone (and OURSELVES) to cut their energy consumption (direct and indirect) to a minimum. That way....
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
There'll be more energy available for the renewables transformation without having to extract more fossil fuels. In other words, climate action leaders calling for energy systemic change should also be calling for individual energy change or else we are digging the hole deeper.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @tree_rescuer
Hm, my take is that the government should create and subsidise green public infrastructure which acts as a complement to more 'green' ways of living.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sebinsua @tree_rescuer
That is, we can't simply ask people to lessen their consumption, we need to try to ensure their consumption is directed towards companies that are innovating the infrastructure and tools required to efficiently run the world in a more 'green' way.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think that unless we do this, there will not be sufficient investment and green infrastructure will not be able to support our current scale (number of people, average consumption level).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.