-55
Is this actually conservative normally? Is it just being heavily brigaded right now?
(self.conservative)
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
-55 points (17.6% liked)
conservative
957 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see the relevance, but no point.
Alright, lemmy help you out, buddy...
Private research has been instrumental in the development of groundbreaking drugs, aerospace technology, internet and communication technologies, agricultural biotechnology, transportation systems, financial innovations, and energy production. While many private ventures have been absorbed by the government or heavily subsidized in modern times, renewable energy technologies still require substantial upfront investments compared to fossil fuels. The existing energy infrastructure is designed for centralized fossil fuel power generation, making the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources a challenge. Transitioning to renewable energy requires changes in infrastructure and workforce skills.
Renewable energy is expected to become increasingly mainstream in the future, but at this point in time, it is simply unreliable and under developed. It's not about policy reform, it's about reliability.
Secondary point, the government is inefficient and under performing at almost everything they do and it's up to the populous to get shit done.
Actually, let me help YOU out buddy. The upfront cost of renewable energy is nothing in comparison to the long term cost of continued fossil fuel usage. It's ultimately cheaper to fix the problem than to let it fester.
A challenge to which we have the solution. We have the tech to build nuclear reactors, the most reliable type of power, and we have reliable storage options that make intermittent sources easy to deal with.
And at scale, renewables are very reliable.
Good. That means it will provide lots of good paying jobs.
Let me break it down for you buddy. These problems don't ultimately mater, because we simply cannot afford to fuck around anymore. The literal monetary cost as well as the cost of people's livelihoods is way higher if we do nothing.
You have this unrealistic expectation that the solution must be flawless. The survival of our species very well may be at stake, and at a minimum the livelihoods of billions of people is at stake. We can't afford to be so picky. Millions, potentially billions will die.
That's like saying "fire extinguishers are terrible! They can't put out all fires, they're inefficient. We should instead use kids water guns from the dollar store"
The government is inefficient, but the population is far worse.