These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us.

But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?" People aren't going to use less energy, especially since radical consumption cutbacks of the sort that Europe sometimes attempts do seem to reduce the quality of human life, sometimes pretty radically. It seems like most people think the priority that matters is "doing what's good for the planet" while essentially disregarding the effect it has on human beings and their ability to survive and thrive.

Unless you want people to die every winter and summer, the goal when talking about climate and energy should not be ""save the planet, humans are a plague, the planet would be better without us!"", it should be to maximize human flourishing. If we can't agree that human flourishing is a worthy goal, we have to step back, waaay back, and reevaluate why we're even having this discussion to begin with.

If we really do think "humans are a plague and the planet would be better without us," things might get pretty terrifying pretty quickly. Who does that benefit? What is the end goal of that mindset?

We can't abide by anti-humanist ways of "solving" problems. If we focus on human flourishing, everyone will get closer to what they want.

Unless, of course, what they want is to decrease human flourishing.

Also, any alternative energy discussion that doesn't include nuclear isn't serious about solving the problem, just kneecapping current trends in energy production. The case against nuclear is mostly ill-informed in my experience. Nuclear, the latest version of which is far safer and more feasible, will be the future, it's just a matter of who in the world will get to it first.