The market also listens to your wallet. If you buy your electricity from a mixed source, there’s definitely some coal and gas in the mix, which isn’t helping with this problem. Instead, buy your electricity from sources you’re comfortable with, such as wind and solar. Nuclear is also better than coal, but that’s a can of worms for another day.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
36 points (97.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6629 readers
203 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I have never heard of someone in the U.S. being able to choose their electricity source or vendor. (Other than putting up your own panels)
Must be nice!
Oh…. I didn’t know. Weren’t you guys supposed to be like all about capitalism and all that?
Anyway, here’s how it works. In my area there’s only one electrical grid, so that grid operator will collect transmission frees to finance their grid maintenance and shady corporate shenanigans.
That grid is connected to various sources, such as coal plants and wind farms. There are many companies that sell energy everywhere within the country, so I can choose whichever I want. Every company also has different products such as “mixed energy” or “100% renewable”, so I can choose the one that fits my ethics and budget.
We do claim to be the home of the free market a lot, yeah!
That sounds like an eminently reasonable system. The only way I could improve it would be to nationalize or whatever the delivery grid.
It used to be nationalized but that idea was too socialist/communist/gay or whatever for our politicians, so now each area is run by a different grid company.
Typical.
A high school buddy of mine made his own biodiesel. He's a biochemist. However he assured me it's not that difficult. On the other hand. I've worked in kitchens and wondered how they recycled the massive amount of grease and oil we went through. I worked at a fried chicken joint and everyone I worked with and worked for could have filled their tanks every couple of days if we had the means to convert the oils.
Energy company accountant: "Bad news sir, our residential energy purchases are down this quarter, we're only grossing $15million due to customer demand for green energy"
Energy company CEO: "Who cares? Hows our business and industrial usage?"
Accountant: "Oh that's still up and continuing to rise, especially with those new AI servers. We're grossing 2.5 billion from them and rising."
CEO: "So the residential sales are..."
Accountant: "Yea sir, comparitively worthless, and have little to no impact on our bottom line. Should we capitulate to the public's demands for green energy?"
CEO: "Fuck that. Raise their prices another 5% this year, and keep burning that coal!"
Yes it's an us problem sure. Fuck you corporations burning tons of energy for AI.
I think AI regulation is a great example of what I was talking about in my comment (and thanks to OP for the shout-out).
Banning or regulating AI takes collective action.
But (fantasies of green authoritarian dictatorships aside) we can't enact collective action without public support.
People who use AI regularly, who rely on it for their jobs or hobbies or side hustles, or who just enjoy the "convenience" of asking ChatGPT or Google a question and getting a clear simple (often wrong) answer, who are afraid of AI regulation because it could take away tools they use, will be more likely to side with Big Tech out of self interest.
People who don't use AI won't suffer any harm from AI regulation. They don't have to choose between their personal benefit and other values, like the environment, or user privacy, or how easy it is to exploit AI for harmful ends. And because they won't be afraid AI regulation will harm them personally, they'll be more likely to support regulation and less likely to buy into industry propaganda.
So the more we encourage people to make the individual choice not to use AI, the more likely collective action regulating AI becomes.
And of course telling people the reasons they shouldn't use AI personally also helps motivate them to vote for AI regulation - and if the reasons are compelling enough, people will share them and spread them and build the anti-AI movement even larger.
I think that's one of the reasons Big Tech is so aggressively shoving AI into every product. The more people use AI as part of their everyday activities, the more they rely on it, the less likely they'll be to support regulation.
For less than a pair of airpods you can buy an electric stove and heater. That'll get you 90% of the way
You can, but they're very inefficient. A heat pump is significantly more efficient and can also keep you cool in the summer if necessary
Absolutely true, but not as cheap. I'd absolutely use one if I had the option tho. An electric heater is easier to put in a rental apartment
Fair enough - but then in a rental apartment, I wouldn't use electric either because usually the heating bill for central heating is calculated by apt size for everyone rather than usage, so I'd end up paying twice over. Newer buildings can have individual measuring devices which changes things.
Ye, same for mine. I just told the landlord I won't be using the gas heater. It's up to him to prove otherwise