It's not my intention to derail the thread but I respectfully disagree with a few points.
There are some assumptions that the world population will remain static, or continue to increase - there is no guarantee that either of these will happen. There is also an assumption that the most obvious and visual forms of the current 'green' energy are all that there is and ever will be. All there is is lessons - just because a lesson is not appropriate for one person doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from taking it. Without creativity, progress stalls for everyone and I personally choose to support creation and an element of targeted positivism over definitive and defeatist statements.
Disagreements are often good, and in this your points are noted. However, and please correct my assumptions in looking at what you posit - if this is what you might be thinking:
Regarding world populations - staying the same or increasing, from the green side infused with the Malthusians of old and the newly converted, the move is to, almost openly now, vastly reduce world populations (they use climate as the button that people can get behind and push while not understanding it might be them who is reduced). World populations indeed have an effect, which is more one of utilizing space and the movement of people and supplies than over population. Its good planning. Over population is just a fear button played over and over (obviously cities compound the effects) without thinking of how best to distribute populations that allow them more space, land and viable community networking.
It is an old problem and one that has enforced population congestion rather than what is possible.
Not many would disagree that new forms of energy that (and you bring this up in a post above) assures non detrimental pollution, reduces noise levels and can be provided without excessive environmental manufacturing toxic waste, is to be strived for. The environmental movement of old (although small) had good focus on pollution (chemical, biological, atmospheric and radioactive et cetera) and they were hindered by the PTB and also later they had effect in making things more efficient, including scrubbing processes in energy and manufacturing in many places as awareness levels increased, including in areas of land reclamation et cetera. It has all being far from perfect, and much has been derailed by the new environmental movement/NGO's who focus on the current themes while receiving buckets of corporate and government cash (e.g. of the many environmentalists I know today, lost to them are chemicals/toxins (which their new green energy is pregnant with) proper agriculture that reduce soil depletion and the reliance upon chemical herbicides and pesticides and the realities of oil that so far are vital in most processes, and forget radioactivity as the silence of events like Fukushima has been deafening).
One of the current themes is greenwashing corporate giants, and if you have had opportunity to have watched this at work, the slight of hand is staggering. Which brings up the current CO2 nonsense that plays into the corporate image on many levels rather than real stewardship. And stewardship in many areas has been glossed over and forgotten, or it has been replaced with green gloss (solar, wind...) as a global panacea that plays well to the general public. The public, without good data, has not the foggiest idea of the ineffective disparity between energy sources and the hidden toxins and capitalization required to provide for this new broad based energy illusion.
至于经验,指出"just because a lesson is not appropriate for one person doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from taking it" - well agreed, and yet in context here a lesson requires good data that is not obfuscated for people to learn from, and the machine in place doing the work of obfuscation is not helpful for people to learn a lesson, and if the lesson learned results in chaos against the lesson learned by others through better data, then there should be a duty to help prevent that realization from using false data, osit.
I grew up around environmentalism - stewardship being pivotal, and people who either affected positive changes or had potential. Take Patrick Moore, who I don't agree on all his points, focused on atomic testing, whale exploitation,
Love Canal, PCP's - toxins before the time of GMO's and the explosion of chemical and pharmaceutical industrialization. What did he see other than a ponerization process that usurped what should have been maintained. And aside from him there was another man of great potential, the geneticist David Suzuki who had the ear of the public and initially spoke of these matters, abandoned his trained roots for a green agenda in sync with other corporate and NGO characters, and thus he has helped sway a whole generation to pseudo environmental causes repeated ad nauseam by a compliant press.
I don't think most of us are against creativity or working for a "New World". Our technologies are far behind what the PTB allow us to know. I think some have pointed out the weaknesses of what is being called renewable or green energy systemsbut that does not mean we don't want or need improvement.
Yes, spot on.
d-train. How quaint.
