> Haven't the costs been reduced due to the economies of scale and time?
That's a sunken cost fallacy. What we have already spent doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose today, and what consequences does it bring.
> Are the environmental downsides not considered part of the cost?
Off course, that's the main issue. Environmental costs are gigantic, but they are also far into the future.
> renewables are still more expensive, but are they really doomed to trap more people in poverty?
Anything that hampers growth will have massive consequences on the long run. Higher energy prices will heavily reduce growth, even if we assume that there's margin for efficiency to be gained from economies of scale and technology improvements.
> Couldn't one argue that the unbalanced economic systems are the primary thing that traps people in poverty and the cost of energy is simply a minor factor?
You could argue the first one if you'd like, I won't because it would be getting off topic. As for the second, the cost of energy is a massive factor into the economy, because energy underpins anything we do. The only real solution we've found to poverty is growth. The worlds wealth follows an exponential, tampering with the base has serious implications when you are looking at climatic timescales.
> There are certainly countries with low energy costs and high poverty rates.
Let me try to explain in another way.
We are at a crossroads. Whatever our past is, our current situation, it's no matter now, that's behind us. We can choose path A, or path B.
Path A (continue to use natural gas) keeps us going. We know that at some point we'll have to deal with the consequences of climate change, but we can modulate our use, and take our time. We are making the future costs higher, there's no doubt about that, but we might be better equipped to switch to renewables in 40 years. There's no reason to rush the switch.
Path B (completely switching to renewables now). This will limit our growth for sure. It will also require us to sort out now how best to handle the transition, because rising prices with our current system will leave a lot of people without heating in the winter, or unable to use appliances like dishwashers (I'm in Spain, our energy cost has been rising constantly, we are seeing this happening). We will need to change a lot in very short time. Our future climate costs will be lower.
In some sense, by choosing path A, we are betting that we will find better solutions at some point in the future. If we choose path B but if some new amazing renewable technology appears in say, 75 years, we've made a huge mistake.
Thanks for explaining it, this makes a lot more sense. But isn't reality more like... option C? Which is work towards B while still relying on A to fill the gaps?
Does moving towards B also produce growth because it's a process that will take decades?
Yes, that has to do nothing with my point.
> Haven't the costs been reduced due to the economies of scale and time?
That's a sunken cost fallacy. What we have already spent doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose today, and what consequences does it bring.
> Are the environmental downsides not considered part of the cost?
Off course, that's the main issue. Environmental costs are gigantic, but they are also far into the future.
> renewables are still more expensive, but are they really doomed to trap more people in poverty?
Anything that hampers growth will have massive consequences on the long run. Higher energy prices will heavily reduce growth, even if we assume that there's margin for efficiency to be gained from economies of scale and technology improvements.
> Couldn't one argue that the unbalanced economic systems are the primary thing that traps people in poverty and the cost of energy is simply a minor factor?
You could argue the first one if you'd like, I won't because it would be getting off topic. As for the second, the cost of energy is a massive factor into the economy, because energy underpins anything we do. The only real solution we've found to poverty is growth. The worlds wealth follows an exponential, tampering with the base has serious implications when you are looking at climatic timescales.
> There are certainly countries with low energy costs and high poverty rates.
Let me try to explain in another way. We are at a crossroads. Whatever our past is, our current situation, it's no matter now, that's behind us. We can choose path A, or path B.
Path A (continue to use natural gas) keeps us going. We know that at some point we'll have to deal with the consequences of climate change, but we can modulate our use, and take our time. We are making the future costs higher, there's no doubt about that, but we might be better equipped to switch to renewables in 40 years. There's no reason to rush the switch.
Path B (completely switching to renewables now). This will limit our growth for sure. It will also require us to sort out now how best to handle the transition, because rising prices with our current system will leave a lot of people without heating in the winter, or unable to use appliances like dishwashers (I'm in Spain, our energy cost has been rising constantly, we are seeing this happening). We will need to change a lot in very short time. Our future climate costs will be lower.
In some sense, by choosing path A, we are betting that we will find better solutions at some point in the future. If we choose path B but if some new amazing renewable technology appears in say, 75 years, we've made a huge mistake.