Bargearse on Nostr: npub1qzc8e…tyetl While this is mostly true, there is one caveat, much of the energy ...
npub1qzc8ejmflltq5uuwmvurfcfd4l96t6np6c8fzgj9l2rdfheadydshtyetl (npub1qzc…yetl)
While this is mostly true, there is one caveat, much of the energy we use is moving energy around and waste from heat. That doesn't need replacing and it is a significant amount.
Digging a tonne of coal up and shipping it to China to burn in a coal fired power plant, where much of the energy is wasted does not need to be replaced. Similarly with oil extracted in Nigeria, shipped and refined in Singapore then reshippied to various places where it's inefficiently burnt to move a person and their sofa about doesn't need replacing. Some 40% of shipping is used just moving fossil fuels around (oil, coal, gas).
Of course we're also stupidly trying to replace that with dumb stuff like green hydrogen which is massively energy intensive and another point entirely.
That aside let's not take away from your important point of journalists being complicit in enabling the continuation of the orthodoxy. I would point out though it's always been thus. One only has to have followed Noam Chomsky who railed against precisely this for decades.
As a couriousty, at the end of a lecture on climate and energy, Professor Kevin Anderson was asked "who he blamed" for the climate change disaster, he listed; Economists, Journalists and voters as the major problem.
We're always miseld, that so many of us buy into it is disturbing; from pollution, cars, climate change , biodiversity loss, resource depletion, pandemics,... and on to social issues of a war on drugs, religion, to nation states, sexuality (LGBTQI), wars, inequality etc. We're willing to suspend disbelief and buy into a fiction of deceit so willingly.
While this is mostly true, there is one caveat, much of the energy we use is moving energy around and waste from heat. That doesn't need replacing and it is a significant amount.
Digging a tonne of coal up and shipping it to China to burn in a coal fired power plant, where much of the energy is wasted does not need to be replaced. Similarly with oil extracted in Nigeria, shipped and refined in Singapore then reshippied to various places where it's inefficiently burnt to move a person and their sofa about doesn't need replacing. Some 40% of shipping is used just moving fossil fuels around (oil, coal, gas).
Of course we're also stupidly trying to replace that with dumb stuff like green hydrogen which is massively energy intensive and another point entirely.
That aside let's not take away from your important point of journalists being complicit in enabling the continuation of the orthodoxy. I would point out though it's always been thus. One only has to have followed Noam Chomsky who railed against precisely this for decades.
As a couriousty, at the end of a lecture on climate and energy, Professor Kevin Anderson was asked "who he blamed" for the climate change disaster, he listed; Economists, Journalists and voters as the major problem.
We're always miseld, that so many of us buy into it is disturbing; from pollution, cars, climate change , biodiversity loss, resource depletion, pandemics,... and on to social issues of a war on drugs, religion, to nation states, sexuality (LGBTQI), wars, inequality etc. We're willing to suspend disbelief and buy into a fiction of deceit so willingly.