• Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s that they cost so damn much

    The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

    rarely profitable

    Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn’t able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

    And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren’t killing the planet.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won’t come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the exact argument people have been making for 60 years, and look where we are now. Around 80% of the world’s energy is still from fossil fuels. Do you want to continue making the same mistakes as the previous generations?