The problem with the generality of the quote is that solar requires rare earth metals, and large deposits have been found in Latin America--something that has historically preceded American invasions or coups against those countries.
So it's not just achieving energy independence, or even what kind of energy, but HOW that independence is achieved.
They could have projected:
"Instead of fighting wars over fossil fuels, consider solar as one tool in a clean-energy generation toolkit we already have at our disposal including de-growth, energy efficiency, wind, hydro, and geothermal, while simultaneously promoting sustainability, indigenous land rights, decentralization of power, justice, and equity for everyone."
But would anyone have read it?
Almost enough text for a leftist meme.
"Energy independence not war dependence" would've hit better for an ending ;)
That's better but still double the characters, with less cultural cache.
How about: make less, not war
Plant more trees, not bombs
Agreed, although being dependent on rare earth metals is probably still preferable to being dependent on fuel. Once the solar panel is made, dependency stops, whereas you need to keep importing fossil fuels to keep the lights on.
It's not energy independence at all. About 80% of our solar panels come from China and probably involved forced labor in their production - and that's with all kinds of tariffs in place specifically trying to combat that.
Compare that to fossil fuels where more than 80% of what we use is produced domestically. If energy independence is the main concern then that's the obvious better choice.
another FYI: Americans are also forced labor... healthcare tied to job, no guaranteed sick leave, no guaranteed breaks, no guaranteed vacations except a couple federal holidays. We are not free here lol.
There are plenty of Americans in actual forced labor situations. Prisoners, agricultural workers, domestic servants, trafficked people. There is a big difference between that and "wage slavery", and actual slavery is much worse and shouldn't be lumped in with everybody working a shitty job because it's the least bad option they can figure out.
Okay, and Frederick Douglass said, “experience teaches us that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other.” Both are still forced labor.
No, they are not remotely the same thing, and you're minimizing the seriousness and scope of modern-day slavery by suggesting that they are. Working a shitty job to pay your rent is in an entirely different realm from being physically imprisoned and violently forced to work.
just FYI: the solar panels made in the USA are made from chinese materials, with chinese machines.
I work for a solar panel manufacturer
Even Pelosi is talking about boycotting Russian oil. We could cripple Putin’s power if we didn’t rely on his fossil fuels. This would have helped prevent war more than any amount of military spending.
Get loud in your communities about what will really make the world safer.
Meh, that's mostly posturing. Europe's not gonna boycott, so it's a moot point internationally.
Moderator removed comment
2.2y
That’s kind of you. I prefer static images that convey a focused message instantly. I would love your help creating better graphics for this message.
Ride a bike, don't sponsor Putin.
Biden just tweeted: "This crisis is a stark reminder: To protect our economy over the long term, we need to become energy independent. It should motivate us to accelerate our transition to a clean energy future."
Stay loud and demand a livable future.
If all countries were independent, sanctions like used against Russia would not work
Sanctions don't work to begin with.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539368?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 1997...
edit if you want more sources:
Here is a research piece https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/sanctions-and-why-they-dont-work-very-well
Here's a DC institute study https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-sanctions-too-much-of-a-bad-thing/
Straight from economists' mouths https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/05/27/why-sanctions-do-not-always-work
If the world was united they would. But alot of the world isn't behind them, especially China and India.
They would still not work, as outlined in the 3 sources of many that I provided
The first has a paywall, the second 2 are opinion pieces discussing limited scope sanctions.
If most of the world's countries were behind it, it would put a serious shutdown on a country's economy.
Of course, in this case, it's a theoretical. Alot of countries aren't gonna help.
The medium piece has links to studies it is citing. Shutting down a country's economy is not the answer to diplomatic failures, and likely to backfire if that country's populace gets angry at the sanctions... like Russians will, because they are proud to live through hardships. Or even pushing the sanctioned country towards your perceived enemy--like Venezuelan or Iranian sanctions pushing those countries towards Russia instead...
Here is a research piece https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/sanctions-and-why-they-dont-work-very-well
Here's a DC institute study https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-sanctions-too-much-of-a-bad-thing/
Straight from economists' mouths https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/05/27/why-sanctions-do-not-always-work
Once again, the first two pieces talk about sanctions limited in scope, the third has a a paywall. (FYI, the first piece that you indicate is a research piece is not, it is clearly an opinion piece. Likewise with the second : it does read more like a study piece, but unfortunately it does not produce any references as one would expect from a study. (One more FYI : I do think much of the work Brookings publishes is very insightful, but they are notorious for presenting themselves in a misleadingly objective manor.))
I agree that sanctions generally don't help with the long-term goals of improved diplomatic relations and/or the promotion of regime changes, but the goal in this case is short term and much more direct: the shutdown of Russia's war machine.
The author of the first link is a researcher. I am not subscribed to the Economist and was still able to read the piece in full.
Making the Russian people suffer, literally not able to access their bank accounts or paypal, and removing them from the global economy is not a good thing even as a short term. 8/10 Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Sanctions aren't going to change Russians' minds if they support the war. This does not bring regime change, and in fact will probably harden support for the war effort.
sanctions only hurt civilians that got nothing to do with it in the first place
What exactly would be an alternative then, hmm?
Never understood the projection thing. It's so passive aggressive.
Does that make billboards active agressive?
No, it makes anyone who projects dumb stuff onto the sides of buildings passive aggressive. Go do something productive rather than making life harder for everyone else.
Fossil fuel offers instant energy anywhere anytime. Solar, not so much.
Lithium and Silicone wars are going to start being a thing just wait.
Greetings from r/solarpunk! Due to numerous suggestions from our community, we're using automod to bring up a topic that comes up a lot: GREENWASHING. ethicalconsumer.org and greenandthistle.com give examples of greenwashing, while scientificamerican.com explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing. If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.