This story is unavailable.

Justin, I think you need to get some perspective. While your observations are on the face of it valid, the spin you are placing upon them is not. We have three choices: 1) Go back to pre-industrial times and stop using energy, 2) Convert to renewables which are MUCH lower impact and produce a trivial quantity of pollution relative to fossil fuels, 3) Continue down the present path and continue to change the climate at a rate that mankind and the a large number of other species will be unable to adapt to. I’m going for #2. Not because it is perfect, but because it is the only viable option in my opinion. Does this mean millions of solar panels and wind turbines? Yes, absolutely it does. Does that have an environmental cost? Yes.

But we have millions of cars on the road and millions of buildings across, not to mention all our other infrastructure, all with an environmental footprint. The footprint of wind and solar compared to all this, and compared to the current sources of energy that power them, is trivial. Unless you are advocating for option (1), then no personal offense meant, but your arguments above seem specious.

Like what you read? Give Justin Sharp a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.