That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?
I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
That is genuinely the most nonsensical, self-contradicting thing I’ve read this week, and you’re not even the only one pursuing this train of thought in this thread.
I have to wonder if some of this doomerist online climate activism thing is a misinformation psyop because… man, that’s some weird place to land on dialectically just by accident. Except it’s probably not (I mean, who would bother doing that on Lemmy) and that’s probably what happened. The set of incentives for opinions social media has generated is genuinely bizarre.
Addressing the threat of climate change is not going well. Talking about it frankly may be “doomerist” but that does not make it untrue.
We’re producing more CO2 than we ever have. The detrimental effects of CO2 are emerging more quickly than we had thought. All over the world we’re electing governments disinclined to take any action.
To look at this situation and conclude that rolling out solar production is a positive thing is naive.
“This whole climate change thing could be a bit worse, so that’s positive… right?”
That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
That doesn’t address my point though.
Solar is only good because climate change is bad.
You can’t say “solar adoption is good” and ignore the climate deteriorating faster than expected.
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?
I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
That is genuinely the most nonsensical, self-contradicting thing I’ve read this week, and you’re not even the only one pursuing this train of thought in this thread.
I have to wonder if some of this doomerist online climate activism thing is a misinformation psyop because… man, that’s some weird place to land on dialectically just by accident. Except it’s probably not (I mean, who would bother doing that on Lemmy) and that’s probably what happened. The set of incentives for opinions social media has generated is genuinely bizarre.
“I think you’re a bot” is just a cheap insult.
Addressing the threat of climate change is not going well. Talking about it frankly may be “doomerist” but that does not make it untrue.
We’re producing more CO2 than we ever have. The detrimental effects of CO2 are emerging more quickly than we had thought. All over the world we’re electing governments disinclined to take any action.
To look at this situation and conclude that rolling out solar production is a positive thing is naive.
“This whole climate change thing could be a bit worse, so that’s positive… right?”