The Washington Post asks What the world would look like without fossil fuels, which can be summed up as "out entire way of existence depends on a huge amount of energy almost all of which we get from oil". The rough idea they are explaining is that if we just stop building more wells and mines, things will gradually get more expensive and it will take a huge amount of time and resources to transition to other sources, but turning it off directly is unrealistic.
Overall it tells a nice story, but what struck me was a paragraph at the end:
“The biggest worry I have is: ‘What are the implications of the clean energy transition in some of the segments of the population that are badly affected?’” Birol said. “In a not very well-planned transition, there could be a bit of a backlash with political implications.”
Basically, the transition will hurt a bunch of people, specifically the ones that are already under a smack-down. "Backlash with political implications".
How about humanitarian implications? How about inequality, or general unfairness? Is the real problem here that it's politically inconvenient?
Calling it "political" is such a euphemism.
Previously
labnotesSinatra with activerecord small json server apps
2023-09-30Next
labnotesRunning Google Gemma Locally in which i discover ollama
2024-02-27I need a trigger warning
30thOh javascript
18thDiscovering idagio
26thThings I love about my phone
24thMy physical relationship to the internet
14thWhy are LLMs so small?
1st5 year old hacking chatgpt
29thFifteen or twenty thousand years
27thpolitical implications
1sta good death
23rdlocations in the magicians
22ndeverything is equally evolved
5thtimezones and dialects
16thShould Robots Have Rites or Rights
11thbad analogies
9ththreads is a mess
7ththings that are neat about the rivian
6thhallucinations are bullshit
5thA Taxonomy of AI Panic Facilitators
4thrivian trusts the driver
2ndModern Improvements
30th