@Hamishcampbell The article cites “opposition” to renewables in country areas, without substantiating any actual country resident's objections and then inserting his own.

He then simultaneously cutes a 1945 philosopher while also accusing renewables advocates of wanting to return to a pre-industrial era?!

All rounded off with that author's favourite hobby horse: nuclear power. He's a hack and a shill.


Q. Suggest you Check your sources Hamish before posting
The author is a big pro nuclear industry lobbyist

A. yep, I realised that, does not, not make it an interesting idea for liberal greens to think about.

He is saying that green energy has a social change agender, and of course it does that it is anti-capitalist and of course it is, if it works. If it does not work to shape this social change we are likely fucked as a species , He does not say that :)


A lot of liberal greens think we can reform the what clearly shouts in a fluffy (quite) way is that we cannot. outreach is two faced in this, not a bad thing, but in the peoples assembelys the wispering has to become a bit loader. The has to go, what we replace this with is up for question.

The article link is pushing an unspoken truth, that green agenders are revolutionary, the end of the . This is good for liberals to hear from the reactionery voice as they might hear it. When the enemy is speaking our truth, yes to further there lie, you rightly point out, we are clearly starting to win.

@Hamishcampbell Yes, the article tosses out “can't make a compelling business model from that” as though that is enough to dismiss renewable transition. You're right to call that out as a #capitalism dinosaur bellow.

@hamishcampbell @bignose yes.. well in the on twitter the author says... "50 people died at Chernobyl".  Whilst wikipedia says other estimates are at a contributing factor in 27,000  deaths.  A big difference.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

To support this server and the OMN project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network