Is energy access a human right?
When #energy suppliers refuse to serve someone, are they violating #humanRights?
Note:
* heating during the winter keeps people alive
* refrigeration keeps food safe
* some people rely on life-support systems that require electricity
OTOH, the above needs can be met using PV panels, batteries, a tent inside the house for extra insulation, etc. So it’s a messy question.
For the #poll below:
HR=human right
DoHR= #UN Declaration of Human Rights (#UNDoHR)
[ ] energy is a HR both philosophically & per DoHR
[ ] energy is a HR philosophically but NOT by DoHR
[ ] energy is not a HR philosophically but is per DoHR
[ ] energy is NOT a HR philosophically or by DoHR
Something I think a lot of the current group of activists don’t understand is that without energy, people die en masse. And they want to end access to energy, which isn’t good.
I was sure you were joking because no one would seriously think @sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net was misrepresenting your argument - his post wasn’t even a reply to you. But then I see that you doubled down on that later.
It isn’t a strawman when people are calling for exactly that by demanding we stop using fossil fuels immediately, which many are.
Reasonable people can see there’s a need to transition into something sustainable and less continuously polluting (all industrial scale energy production has an environmental impact, but dumping thousands of tons of gas into the air 24/7/365 is particularly continuously polluting), but people saying we need to just stop using oil(like the name of a certain activist group demands) or that we need to stop right now(As a certain activist screamed at the UN to do) are calling to end access to energy with the corresponding consequences.
Recently I had a deep review of my book “The Graysonian Ethic” done, and two of the recurring themes throughout the book was the balance between idealism and realism and considering both the short and long term consequences of decisions. The need for a balanced approach between urgent action and the potential consequences aligns with the overarching themes. The book emphasizes the importance of considering both short-term and long-term consequences of our actions, as well as the complexities involved in making decisions that impact individuals and humanity as a whole.
And btw a lot are asking to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to start subsidizing renewables with that same amount of money
It’s a strawman cause we are talking about no particular case. Seems to me that it’s just another attack to just stop oil and similar people, which I don’t like lol
People will die anyway if we don’t stop with fossil fuels also.
It’s really a matter of what path we want to achieve:
people dying for capitalism
people dying for green capitalism
stop with the capitalism, people will die in the transition but should be much fewer than those other 2 options
Why the strawman out of nowhere my friend :)
I was sure you were joking because no one would seriously think @sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net was misrepresenting your argument - his post wasn’t even a reply to you. But then I see that you doubled down on that later.
It isn’t a strawman when people are calling for exactly that by demanding we stop using fossil fuels immediately, which many are.
Reasonable people can see there’s a need to transition into something sustainable and less continuously polluting (all industrial scale energy production has an environmental impact, but dumping thousands of tons of gas into the air 24/7/365 is particularly continuously polluting), but people saying we need to just stop using oil(like the name of a certain activist group demands) or that we need to stop right now(As a certain activist screamed at the UN to do) are calling to end access to energy with the corresponding consequences.
Recently I had a deep review of my book “The Graysonian Ethic” done, and two of the recurring themes throughout the book was the balance between idealism and realism and considering both the short and long term consequences of decisions. The need for a balanced approach between urgent action and the potential consequences aligns with the overarching themes. The book emphasizes the importance of considering both short-term and long-term consequences of our actions, as well as the complexities involved in making decisions that impact individuals and humanity as a whole.
You ask for 10 to receive 7-6-5…
And btw a lot are asking to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to start subsidizing renewables with that same amount of money
It’s a strawman cause we are talking about no particular case. Seems to me that it’s just another attack to just stop oil and similar people, which I don’t like lol
People will die anyway if we don’t stop with fossil fuels also.
It’s really a matter of what path we want to achieve: