It isn't a strawman when people are calling for exactly that by demanding we stop using fossil fuels immediately, which many are.
Reasonable people can see there's a need to transition into something sustainable and less continuously polluting (all industrial scale energy production has an environmental impact, but dumping thousands of tons of gas into the air 24/7/365 is particularly continuously polluting), but people saying we need to just stop using oil(like the name of a certain activist group demands) or that we need to stop right now(As a certain activist screamed at the UN to do) are calling to end access to energy with the corresponding consequences.
Recently I had a deep review of my book "The Graysonian Ethic" done, and two of the recurring themes throughout the book was the balance between idealism and realism and considering both the short and long term consequences of decisions. The need for a balanced approach between urgent action and the potential consequences aligns with the overarching themes. The book emphasizes the importance of considering both short-term and long-term consequences of our actions, as well as the complexities involved in making decisions that impact individuals and humanity as a whole.
activistPnk@slrpnk.net 10 months ago
I was sure you were joking because no one would seriously think @sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net was misrepresenting your argument - his post wasn’t even a reply to you. But then I see that you doubled down on that later.