I don’t disagree with you. Coal has lifted entire countries out of poverty.
I see the question as a first step in breaking the newspeak thinking.
Then we can start debating pros and cons of different energy sources.
This is a terrible take.
Coal and oil have practically enabled industrious humans to lift humanity out of poverty and subsistence farming.
Agree it’s a shame that I cannot comment via nostr to substack.
nostr:npub1alpha9l6f7kk08jxfdaxrpqqnd7vwcz6e6cvtattgexjhxr2vrcqk86dsn wen nostr browser extensionđź‘€
Discussion
The framing proposed concedes that there is a central planner class that has the right to choose the “correct” energy sources on behalf of humanity.
This is a losing battle.
You are either pro or anti humanity.
Team anti-humanity starves the undeveloped world of reliable organic energy, and ushers in energy poverty in the developed world.
Team pro-humanity champions and advocates energy freedom, where winners and losers and chosen by central planners by way of subsidy or regulation.
End users can then decide what they want to use.
are not chosen*
I still don’t think we disagree. The developed world has no right to tell developing countries that they can’t use coal, just like we did, because our round at using it polluted the air.
That approach is extremely selfish.
