I too would be tempted to riot if my government destroyed industry and caused high level of joblessness by shutting down energy production. Supposedly for environmental reasons, but only to start burning coal again. Like they did in Germany.

If your argument that your environmental solution is no better than status quo, then we agree in principle.

This is unwarranted optimism, except for special permits, everyone in EU, including in Germany is getting banned. Including criticizing politicians.

I am not familiar with other points, but this seems to be spot on. You don't replace copper with aluminum for very known reasons. Recycling for most rare materials is only theoretical, as it doesn't happen in practice, and batteries in 2026 are still currently largely just landfilled instead of recycling. So if I extrapolate from these points - Michaux is spot-on while you are confusing what ought to be with what is.

We might disagree on many points, but I think we can both agree that recycling should be much further along for all aspects of common goods - batteries, electronics, consumer plastics, etc.

What in my "you had other people pay for your solar panels" response is not clear?

What in my response make you think I don't understand what mitigation is? Be specific.

Your installation was subsidized and incentivized with tax dollars and above-market utility purchase rates, that in turn increased costs of electricity for everyone.

Citation required.

My understanding, based on Michaux 2021 work, that there is not enough minerals to manufacture required number of EVs. New technologies that use no/less of exotic minerals, more mining, more refining, etc. would be required to achieve that goal. All of this might be doable, but transition would be multi-decade long.

Mitigation is not happening because reducing emissions was never a goal of environmentalism. The system is what it does. Environmentalism reduces energy available to an individual (and therefore reducing personal freedoms and quality of life). Therefore, this is its purpose. The fact that alternative solutions, such as mitigation of climate change or nuclear, are not seriously considered just demonstrate that.

When your AI agent orders 3 tons of bird seed you will be solely and personally responsible for this.

Yes, it rather slow, but I don't really need more. SE is good enough for occasional video call, email checking, etc. I have stationary PCs to do compute-intense tasks.

Can we produce enough EV batteries to switch all transportation to it? As of today, call for EV-only transportation means that personal vehicle ownership becomes impossible. To put it differently, you can drive your EV only because other people drive ICE.

We did find such energy source. It is called nuclear. Some places, like France, even managed to largely switch to using it a long time ago.

Because food, shelter, and heating and cooling largely depend on having easy access to fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there will be nearly immediate famine, followed by mass migrations from too cold and too hot regions. Death toll will be in Billions. That why.

Not if you also oppose nuclear. Not if you also want to have any kind of manufacturing that involves aluminum, cement, etc. Not if you also want to have AI data centers. etc., etc.

Can you live without grid and just with your solar panels? Is your car made solely out of no energy-intense materials like wood? Are you able to charge it without grid?

Not quite. Part of your cheque goes toward NGO that claims they are planting trees in Africa. In practice it is 80%+ admin fees.



Don't confuse your feel-good environmental virtue signaling with actually making difference. What you call/aspire would require such drastic quality of life drop that not even the most vocal and committed environmentalists would be willing to do.