Renewable energy does deplete a lot of natural resources. Even assuming it is carbon neutral (it isn't). Even assuming we're still capable of constructing those without fossil energy (we currently can't). Even assuming mining of various minerals is done without fossil energy (it isn't). Even assuming it doesn't require any mining (it does). It still largely requires "natural surfaces" where we have to disrupt local environments. It might be net benefits (offshore wind farms seem to improve diversity), but we have no renewable energy growth that doesn't require first for the natural resources to take a toll.

Don't get me wrong, I do think this is where we're heading towards, and I feel it's okay. But let's not be blind that yes even assuming we go towards fully renewable energy (still a big if, or rather very long when), any growth of energy consumption comes with a cost to natural resources.

There’s zero evidence for that.

Maybe. The increased competition and other side effects of increased resource usage also increase the chance of us nuking ourselves, so it's liable to be a close-run thing.

Yeah so they should increase the efficiency instead of the power.

As long as we insist on doing the same thing, we will never use less in total. Point me to any sizable consumption field where gains in efficiency didn't translate to more usage.

The best way to enjoy HN is to just ignore these comments. There are a lot of bored, angsty, frustrated, lonely people, many struggling with mental illness that like to make comments like this for no other reason than getting attention.

We'll blow ourselves up before climate and scarcity are solved. AI might help with this.

Depends what the externalities of that resource usage are, and who bares them.

Currently while NVidea shareholders reap the reward, it's people in the global south that suffer the immediate consequences (although the rest of us will eventually too)