Acting like most people who advocate getting away from fossil fuels desire a global economic collapse rather than an intentional, well thought and executed transition.

▲

userbinator 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The point is that it's impossible without huge suffering which people would rather not have.

	▲	array_key_first 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It is absolutely not impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without suffering. Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy. In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this. If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.
	▲	unethical_ban 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I do not believe that is true. Solar and EV technology are advancing rapidly, and with investment in grid infrastructure and incentives for generators to go renewable we could be along with Europe and China in reducing FF dependence for power. Instead the current administration is actively sabotaging the US position on renewable energy.

▲

brigandish 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I see you have a response from the person accused of acting in bad faith, and whether you agree or not (which you have done), it is reasonable, as was your disagreement.

It was not bad faith, whatever that is, and it was not a straw man.