Thank you for your post on “Is carbon the new slavery.” It raises an intriguing question for students to consider.
There are two points I would suggest adding to the discussion, both of which require broader consideration of the costs and morality involved.
First, you mention that the costs of reducing reliance on carbon are falling. I respectfully disagree. While incremental costs in some cases may decrease, the total system cost is undeniably rising—often significantly. An analogy may help illustrate this: consider a family debating whether to add a second car. The additional car, such as a compact vehicle, might be less expensive than their existing SUV. While the second car provides more transportation options and flexibility, the total cost of transportation for the household clearly increases. Similarly, while renewables may have lower per-kilowatt costs than traditional baseload power stations, the total cost of integrating renewables into the grid—such as building new transmission infrastructure—substantially increases.
This leads to a moral question: Is it justifiable to impose these rising costs, which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, when the added renewable power may have little measurable impact on the global average temperature?
Second, is it morally acceptable to require the six billion people worldwide who currently lack reliable energy systems to adopt electric vehicles and depend on intermittent renewable sources? These populations aspire to the same standard of living we enjoy in the West, and the most accessible path for them often involves fossil fuel-based systems, which are more affordable and reliable.
I would argue that your students’ grandchildren may have no way of knowing whether the actions we take—or don’t take—today will meaningfully affect climate change in the future. It’s impossible to independently test these scenarios. What they will recognize is the extent to which we may have strained our economy in pursuit of a goal that remains unprovable.
Also worth noting that climate change is no longer the existential threat it was once thought to be. A huge problem to be solved, but not an existential threat to humanity. Also, so many of the “solutions” put out by the green new deal radicals are unrealistic at best and disastrous at worst.
Thank you for your post on “Is carbon the new slavery.” It raises an intriguing question for students to consider.
There are two points I would suggest adding to the discussion, both of which require broader consideration of the costs and morality involved.
First, you mention that the costs of reducing reliance on carbon are falling. I respectfully disagree. While incremental costs in some cases may decrease, the total system cost is undeniably rising—often significantly. An analogy may help illustrate this: consider a family debating whether to add a second car. The additional car, such as a compact vehicle, might be less expensive than their existing SUV. While the second car provides more transportation options and flexibility, the total cost of transportation for the household clearly increases. Similarly, while renewables may have lower per-kilowatt costs than traditional baseload power stations, the total cost of integrating renewables into the grid—such as building new transmission infrastructure—substantially increases.
This leads to a moral question: Is it justifiable to impose these rising costs, which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, when the added renewable power may have little measurable impact on the global average temperature?
Second, is it morally acceptable to require the six billion people worldwide who currently lack reliable energy systems to adopt electric vehicles and depend on intermittent renewable sources? These populations aspire to the same standard of living we enjoy in the West, and the most accessible path for them often involves fossil fuel-based systems, which are more affordable and reliable.
I would argue that your students’ grandchildren may have no way of knowing whether the actions we take—or don’t take—today will meaningfully affect climate change in the future. It’s impossible to independently test these scenarios. What they will recognize is the extent to which we may have strained our economy in pursuit of a goal that remains unprovable.
Also worth noting that climate change is no longer the existential threat it was once thought to be. A huge problem to be solved, but not an existential threat to humanity. Also, so many of the “solutions” put out by the green new deal radicals are unrealistic at best and disastrous at worst.