Comment by quadrifoliate
1 day ago
> I think energy production would be much more abundant and directly in control of the people if governments stopped...
Lots of people pat themselves on the back for (correctly) believing that climate change is real. Why is it so hard for people to also believe that regulatory capture and oligarchy are real, and directly responsible for the lack of action against climate change?
Think of all the for-profit power utility companies in the US. Why are they for-profit? For that matter, why are ISPs for-profit and not run as non-profits with heavy government assistance? Answer, basically: Because the existing people that make lots of money off them have been lobbying heavily to make it so. Similarly, it is no coincidence the current leadership in the US is actively against renewable energy.
A lot of the existing wealth, especially in North America and Europe was built on top of fossil fuels directly or indirectly (cars, power plants, industries, maintaining diplomatic relations with oil-rich nations). That dependence is hard to unwind and is going to take 50 years or more unless the US electorate can start electing people that believe in climate change. And for this reason, actually addressing climate change is going to come from unintuitive social actions, like making smaller housing more fashionable, moving to urban areas, possibly cracking down heavily on crime in those areas, and financially rewarding the use of public transport and bikes.
Climate change is science: there is evidence, prediction, measurement, all of that.
Oligarchy and regulatory capture are undeniably real, but they are not scientific. They’re social phenomena, and much harder to theorize about and model than e.g. what happens to rainfall in Northern Europe with a 1.5c El Niño.
Worse, while oligarchy is absolutely real and causing great harm, its amorphous nature means some people blame it the way people used to blame demons, or humours. Flat tire? The oligarchs! Sprained ankle? The oligarchs!
So while both climate change and oligarchy are real problems, I don’t see them as the same class of problem at all, and the tools to address are different. They’re entangled (oligarchs who will never feel discomfort short of defenestration are unlikely to allow disruption of their wealth just for feeding people), but different.
I'm pretty sure that GP agrees with you on this point? You just cut off the rest of their quote where they point that out.
Do they?
Unless stuff like "Why not give solar an advantage..." is a rhetorical question with the answer of "Because lots of current billionaires would make less money", I don't think they are pointing out the same stuff I said.