I’m seeing more and more of this sentiment, particularly this simplistic tone which spreads FUD around the energy transition. I wonder where it is coming from.
But no, as somebody thoroughly on the left wing of the political spectrum, and a believer in most of the things you accuse climate activists of, I can attest that I’m a minority. I know a bunch of climate activists exists that have full faith that capitalism will solve the crises, some actually believe it has basically been solved (I call them climate optimists; and is a form of climate denialism).
However I do want to defend my camp here a little. Have you considered that perhaps we are right? GMO was supposed to end world hunger, or at least provide a global food security, it was pointed out at the time that no such thing would happen (as we already could have food security through more equal distribution). Now GMO is a pretty established technology that is rolled out in most of the world, and lo-and-behold, food security is still an issue.
Today I see nuclear power pitch similarly as a solution to global warming, however looking at the data, seeing different energy policies, where some countries keep building more reactors, others keep what they have, and some—but few—decommission and phase out nuclear power. What the data indicates is that nuclear power policy is pretty much irrelevant next to a policy of renewable proliferation and other energy savings measures. In other words it doesn’t matter. It can even be argued, because of the cost of nuclear power, that keeping them on is drawing away funds which could otherwise be used in more effective climate measures.
But no, as somebody thoroughly on the left wing of the political spectrum, and a believer in most of the things you accuse climate activists of, I can attest that I’m a minority. I know a bunch of climate activists exists that have full faith that capitalism will solve the crises, some actually believe it has basically been solved (I call them climate optimists; and is a form of climate denialism).
However I do want to defend my camp here a little. Have you considered that perhaps we are right? GMO was supposed to end world hunger, or at least provide a global food security, it was pointed out at the time that no such thing would happen (as we already could have food security through more equal distribution). Now GMO is a pretty established technology that is rolled out in most of the world, and lo-and-behold, food security is still an issue.
Today I see nuclear power pitch similarly as a solution to global warming, however looking at the data, seeing different energy policies, where some countries keep building more reactors, others keep what they have, and some—but few—decommission and phase out nuclear power. What the data indicates is that nuclear power policy is pretty much irrelevant next to a policy of renewable proliferation and other energy savings measures. In other words it doesn’t matter. It can even be argued, because of the cost of nuclear power, that keeping them on is drawing away funds which could otherwise be used in more effective climate measures.