Hacker News Reader

I don't think your standard of living will change. Your household devices are getting more and more energy efficient. Did your standard of living change as your car fuel efficiency of your increased? And if it did, did you not adapt?

On your other point: If your complaining about government handouts, the oil/gas industry gets billions dollars in subsidies every year.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)

Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)

Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)*

Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)

Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)*

*Corn (ethanol) subsidies need to be replaced with something else. It will not work (not sustainable) and is a handout to the agriculture industry.

Also, the externalities of fossil fuel production is not priced in when purchasing the fuel. Health, disasters, other issues are not included.

By the way, do you not think that your standard of living will change when fossil fuels run out? Best thing is to be diversified.

> My standard of living is something I won't compromise on.

Maybe you phrased it stronger than intended, but this rejection of any compromise feels very egoistic and short-sighted. This is unrelated to the article itself, which I didn't even read, but I wanted to react because I think the lack of compromise is doing a lot of harm these days.

Because current energy sources get no subsidies? At the very least let them compete fairly in the market. Eliminate all coal and gas subsidies.

> My standard of living is something I won't compromise on.

You can compromise on it or you can lose it entirely.

Your choice, snowflake.

I'll go with none of the above, i.e. nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

> Everything I value - everything that makes my life great - including medicine, cuisine, art, travel, education, and countless other things, requires huge amounts of cheap, reliable energy.

here is the problem. cheap, reliable energy is something that will end in 20-50 years, depending who you ask.

>If these lame energy sources were truly worthwhile, their proponents would build a startup around it, start making a profit, attract private capital to expand, and make even larger profits.

there's no option for this because digging out energy without taking into account the price of pollution when selling it can't be beaten if the only thing that matters is the dollar. that's without government subsidies and tax breaks for mining companies.

>Instead, what they clamor for is government handouts, and laws to shackle the production of energy from sources that actually work.

that's because people like you can't be arsed to change their unsustainable lifestyle by themselves. go do the world a favor and read something about exponential growth.

If by "sources that actually work" you mean nuclear, I'm all for it. All civilization would run on nuclear if government weren't in the way.

If you mean fossil fuels, then your lifestyle is subsidized in part by the destruction of my environment. I consider that an unjust initiation of force. Remove that involuntary infringement on my property rights, by paying to clean up the trash you're dumping in the atmosphere, and then we'll see what solutions really succeed best in the marketplace.

> That's because any such forcing prevents people from acting on their own best judgement

That is not how societies work, if you believe Hydrogen cyanide is the best thing to paint your house that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it; it doesn't matter if you realize or not how poisonous it is.

Hydrogen Cyanide is actually a colorless liquid that would evaporate in the sunlight. You may be looking for Prussian blue, which has got a lovely blue color, but isn't very toxic.

Anyway, this is orthogonal to the effectivity of your analogy, but I thought you may want to know.