Nostr

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.

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

elsat 1y ago

are not chosen*

Alejandro 1y ago

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.

elsat 1y ago

Agree with you in general.

Just jaded on the continuous anti-energy framing.

You are on the right path, continue ser 🫡

kerimae 1y ago

I'm not anti-coal at all. I'm pro-clean up your messes so I can fish in clean waters again. I don't think it has to be either/or.