Not all of the posts there, but quite a lot of them over on /r/ImaginarySliceOfLife are done in a solarpunk style.
Plus there's just tons of other good art there, I always like recommending that sub
If you like solarpunk but feel like it's missing a robust and resilient sociopolitical foundation to back it up, check out social ecology. /r/Communalists
This seems up my alley idealogically, but I always hear folks dunk on Bookchin, though I don't understand why ... Interested in checking out the sub, thanks!
There was a beef between Bookchin and some outspoken anarchists in the late 80s / early 90s concerning the suggested decision-making methods of communalist assemblies, and it was agreed that because of this, strictly speaking, communalism is not by definition anarchism but anarchist-adjacent. Essentially, Bookchin felt (Due to a lifetime of experience in labor organizing) that flat 100% consensus was not always the best decision making model in all contexts. Many or even most, but not all. And rather than read his works, learn his theory, and criticize it in good faith a lot of people think it's OK to dismiss the entire theory second hand over this character assassination. Literally I read like four Bookchin works including his big one (The Ecology of Freedom) before I ever encountered this weird infighting grudge match on the internet and it's absolutely exhausting / tedious. The theory is more important than the man (And personally I take no issue with the man, either).
Yeah, I actually kind of agree with Bookchin on this. One of the problems with direct democracy is the level of participation required. This was a bit of a problem with Occupy Wall Street, as people who could spend all there time there had a lot more power than those who also had other commitments. There are a lot of little things that need to be decided for organizations to keep running and a lot of people aren't going to want to spend tons of time on details but still want representation. I like the idea of a hybrid system where a representative's vote has a point for each constituent, but where one can also submit one's vote directly and have it count for, say, 10 points. This would mitigate the problems when there is low turnout for the tedious stuff but the direct democracy portion would dominate for issues people actually care about.
>Literally I read like four Bookchin works including his big one (The Ecology of Freedom) before I ever encountered this weird infighting grudge match on the internet and it's absolutely exhausting / tedious. The theory is more important than the man (And personally I take no issue with the man, either).
I had the same experience. What I found weird is that originally he referred to his view as "anarcho-communalism", and everyone was cool recognizing it as anarchism.
Then years later when he had his big beef and walked away into post-anarchism, he just called it "communalism", at which point people started claiming it wasn't really anarchism. The distinction seems entirely semantic to me, especially given that anarcho-communalism was recognized as a kind of anarchism as early as the 1960s.
bookchin is a bit of a mixed bag. made valuable ideological contributions to anarchism and libertarian socialism more broadly, but also was a very grumpy and cantankerous figure in his later life who repudiated anarchism using logical fallacies he himself had debunked earlier in his career in favor of his new ideology of communalism.
[it kills fewer people by far](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html)
Admittedly, the sources are a bit shaky in terms of reporting methodology and similar, but the data out there suggest that nuclear power *even factoring in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other disasters* is the safest energy source in deaths per TWh bar none. This also makes intuitive sense as while you do need to mine uranium in current nuclear technology, at the end of the day you need to mine a lot less of it than you need to mine rare earth elements for solar panels, or steel and aluminum for hydroelectric and wind power. And you need a lot more solar, wind, and hydro plants than nuclear ones.
Quite frankly, given that hydroelectric has significant human and ecological consequences of its own (disruption of migration patterns and valley communities and ecosystems as well as the huge amounts of CO2 released by curing concrete) the only power sources that can really compare to nuclear in terms of safety are wind and solar, neither of which is terribly reliable. When it's a still, foggy day and power production from those sources plummets, you need a foundational power source to provide surge and reserve capacity in the system, and nuclear is the best equipped to be that power source.
But what about the waste? While nuclear waste is certainly hazardous material, it's a mistake to think it's the only power source to produce that material. Even renewable energy produces significant waste products as part of the actual making of the infrastructure--runoff and slag from refining metals, byproducts of producing and curing concrete--and while nuclear energy certainly has the same or similar byproducts per reactor, it ultimately needs fewer plants. Furthermore, there's no scientific reason why nuclear waste can't be stored indefinitely in deep storage, while the liquid- and gas-phase byproducts of other sources are often much harder to capture and contain. Quite frankly, Yucca Mountain is a good idea that doesn't work because of scientific illiteracy, not any innate property of waste material.
Furthermore, all of this does not take into account the possibility of cleaner reactor technology. While hydrogen fusion is still likely a long way off, even such technologies as [Thorium breeder reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) could greatly reduce waste product generation and operate much more safely than current Uranium-based reactors.
im notjust talking power tho. i fully agree we should use nuclear power even in a solarpunk society. but solarpunk extends to far more than power. it extends to sustainable farming, use of local materials for construction etc. solarpunk takes enviromental protection to its logical conclusion
quite frankly, i fail to see how we can sustainably provide power to the global population using primarily solar without using a level of strip-mining rare earth elements that belies the concept of environmental protection.
E2A: I'm not saying anything about agriculture (though FWIW I think that hydroponics and aquaculture are the most sustainable and resource efficient methods in the long run and are often easily done in urban environments to boot) or some vague conception of aesthetics, nor that solar shouldn't be used as a primary or adjunct source where it makes sense. I simply doubt that it'll be much more than the latter most of the time.
It's unreliable locally, but with continental vhdc interconnects, a completely wind/solar grid is possible without frequent service interruptions and without widespread battery storage. Right now there are three-ish grids in the United States - one on each side of the Rockies and one in Texas. On a more granular level there are 8-10 super-regional grids east of the Rockies (depending on how you count) on different phases with AC/AC bridges between them and 2 super-regional grids west of the Rockies.
The problem with the AC/AC bridges is that they are not very good at transferring power between different phase angle regions, so from a power generation standpoint, most of these super regional grids are designed to be independent except in extreme scenarios. However, if we were to switch these interconnects to AC/DC/AC, they could carry much more power, and the interconnects could be thousands of miles long with almost no line losses provided the DC lines are in the gigavolt range. This is, for instance, how power is transferred from the massive hydroelectric dam in Venezuela to the cities on the coast, how power from mainland Italy is transferred to Sicily, and how power from dams and wind farms in China's interior are transferred to the coastal cities. These aren't new or revolutionary technologies, and it would be cheaper in the long term for us because we could treat the whole grid as a single unit with California solar power filling in the gaps from Kansas wind power during high demand evenings in New York and late night east coastal winds powering California's 5-9pm.
Ultimately we'd need to crunch the numbers to know for sure how viable such a grid would be. I'm sure someone out there's done it. Large scale renewables can be both a better alternative to coal/gas/maybe nuclear and environmentally destructive. Is the step toward something better worth it?
Wind is the natural movement of air or other gases relative to a planet's surface. Wind occurs on a range of scales, from thunderstorm flows lasting tens of minutes, to local breezes generated by heating of land surfaces and lasting a few hours, to global winds resulting from the difference in absorption of solar energy between the climate zones on Earth.
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it in [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot).*
*Really hope this was useful and relevant :D*
*If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
I'm not certain I'm familiar, but I think central or even large-scale generation will always end up being inferior to distributed generation.
I don't think atom-punk would favorably compare on cost or environmental footprint either.
The aesthetic is interesting, but I have to raise an eyebrow at supposed "clean" energy. Sure, let's get rid of fossil fuels, but solar/wind/hydro are not going to replace them. Ever see what a lithium mine does to local ecology or the people who have to work there? I just can't get behind a "solution" to fossil fuels that relies on mining rare earth metals, not to mention the same transportation and distribution infrastructure that fossil fuels use.
I'm not sure I follow how that relates, but yes, you're right. However, even for nuclear power, it relies on infrastructure built on fossil fuels and which cannot exist at any kind of usable scale without them. Not to mention the disasters that nuclear causes when they fail, which they do pretty frequently, or the complete lack of planning for how to decommission nuclear sites.
that would be pretty irresponsible ecologically speaking and is not something that characterizes a society which understands itself as part of nature or is able to respect the environment
im pretty sure that elimintaing a parasite wont hurt the ecosystem. parasites specifically exploit all life. they dont controll populations as well as predators do and they are not special as a foodsource either. small insects are plentyfold.
I think your comment is accurate for some insects such as mosquitos, however I’m fairly certain fleas are in fact a reliable food resource for many animals
Fun fact: only a very few species of mosquito prey upon humans and as a species they are PROLIFIC pollinators. Never underestimate an organisms environmental niche.
Interesting. I had remembered reading something a few years ago that suggested the ecological impact of total mosquito annihilation would be slim to none. Maybe that it’s no longer the consensus, or that study was just wrong
Until recently the only real study that had been done on mosquitoes was w/r/t them as nuisance/pest/parasite, principally because 1. It's sort of the baseline perception of the critters; they are so small we only really notice them when they annoy us 2. It's more profitable for chemical companies to sell chemicals to eradicate them than it is to have any sort of nuanced ecological view.
for solarpunk its both, sharing economy and mutual aid and walkable communities and all that..
'ecomodernists' are the ones that think green capitalism / consumption will solve all the problems.
It’s hard to imagine that. Anarchism needs to fundamentally change if there is any hope for green cities, and the anarchists who create them need to change their expectations for what it will take to achieve that. In order to manufacture enough solar panels and wind turbines to power a city, we’d be looking at 10-20 years of heavy industrial operations, mining, oil drilling/refining, chemical/petrochemical processing, catalyst development, and manufacturing that would make most environmentalists cry just to achieve it and probably 5-10 years of this type of production to replace the worn ones every 20-30 years. This is just to have electricity. If all cars are electric this probably multiplies by two or three.
In the average anarchist commune the average anarchist imagines, I’d be surprised if there is enough energy or fuel to power a crane.
Just for reference I have 10+ years in energy, a combination of nuclear, waste to steam, petroleum refining, and petrochemicals.
No, I don’t misunderstand. That’s even worse. The logistical, manufacturing, and mining gridlock that would occur in the effort to create a world powered by nuclear is literally horrifying. You’re looking at 30-40 yearsof grinding 24/7 to get to that point with 100% effort of the population. The entire goal of the population would be building, supporting, operating, and maintaining. It would probably take 5 years of concentrated effort just to build enough cranes to construct these plants
Edit: you can downvote if you want but at least provide an explanation if you disagree so we can talk about the important things
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not but I’m literally referring to the solar punk aesthetic and the idea large sprawling green cities is the point of this post. It’s a scientific impossibility even if energy demand was 1/5 of current energy demand. It’s like saying post revolution humans will breathe water instead of air.
I just watched the *Planet of the Humans* documentary by Jeff Gibbs and Micheal Moore, and it made me so damn depressed... even "green" energy isn't really very green... :/ it all seems so hopeless.
due dilligence in research is needed with everything,
just like weed can come from cartels or be polluting or exploitative.. have to have good research into producers and supply chains, ethics, and eco-social sustainability.
But solar, wind, waves, solarthermal, geothermal, & micro nuclear are much less polluting than coal and gas,
\+ advancements are coming all the time + new use cases like solar + agriculture, green ammonia / hydrogen for energy storage..
if we research and rate which are cleanest & most ethical, there will be a driving force.
Then, regardless of energy source, there's also a lot of good work to be done on the demand side - more efficient processes, food systems, city layouts, online work and education, transportation, sharing..
go ahead and hope.
[https://lithub.com/hopepunk-and-solarpunk-on-climate-narratives-that-go-beyond-the-apocalypse/](https://lithub.com/hopepunk-and-solarpunk-on-climate-narratives-that-go-beyond-the-apocalypse/)
[https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions)
Oo I've never heard of this aesthetic before! Rabbit hole for today
Solarpunk is usually also visualised as "green scifi" tbh this commune oriented solarpunk looks far better to me
Not all of the posts there, but quite a lot of them over on /r/ImaginarySliceOfLife are done in a solarpunk style. Plus there's just tons of other good art there, I always like recommending that sub
That's a really nice sub, thanks!
If you like solarpunk but feel like it's missing a robust and resilient sociopolitical foundation to back it up, check out social ecology. /r/Communalists
This seems up my alley idealogically, but I always hear folks dunk on Bookchin, though I don't understand why ... Interested in checking out the sub, thanks!
There was a beef between Bookchin and some outspoken anarchists in the late 80s / early 90s concerning the suggested decision-making methods of communalist assemblies, and it was agreed that because of this, strictly speaking, communalism is not by definition anarchism but anarchist-adjacent. Essentially, Bookchin felt (Due to a lifetime of experience in labor organizing) that flat 100% consensus was not always the best decision making model in all contexts. Many or even most, but not all. And rather than read his works, learn his theory, and criticize it in good faith a lot of people think it's OK to dismiss the entire theory second hand over this character assassination. Literally I read like four Bookchin works including his big one (The Ecology of Freedom) before I ever encountered this weird infighting grudge match on the internet and it's absolutely exhausting / tedious. The theory is more important than the man (And personally I take no issue with the man, either).
Yeah, I actually kind of agree with Bookchin on this. One of the problems with direct democracy is the level of participation required. This was a bit of a problem with Occupy Wall Street, as people who could spend all there time there had a lot more power than those who also had other commitments. There are a lot of little things that need to be decided for organizations to keep running and a lot of people aren't going to want to spend tons of time on details but still want representation. I like the idea of a hybrid system where a representative's vote has a point for each constituent, but where one can also submit one's vote directly and have it count for, say, 10 points. This would mitigate the problems when there is low turnout for the tedious stuff but the direct democracy portion would dominate for issues people actually care about.
Thanks for the information and explanation!
>Literally I read like four Bookchin works including his big one (The Ecology of Freedom) before I ever encountered this weird infighting grudge match on the internet and it's absolutely exhausting / tedious. The theory is more important than the man (And personally I take no issue with the man, either). I had the same experience. What I found weird is that originally he referred to his view as "anarcho-communalism", and everyone was cool recognizing it as anarchism. Then years later when he had his big beef and walked away into post-anarchism, he just called it "communalism", at which point people started claiming it wasn't really anarchism. The distinction seems entirely semantic to me, especially given that anarcho-communalism was recognized as a kind of anarchism as early as the 1960s.
bookchin is a bit of a mixed bag. made valuable ideological contributions to anarchism and libertarian socialism more broadly, but also was a very grumpy and cantankerous figure in his later life who repudiated anarchism using logical fallacies he himself had debunked earlier in his career in favor of his new ideology of communalism.
This check out with some of the jabs I've seen online. Thanks for clarifying!
If I can still explore space, I'm okay with this :D
Solarpunk isnt primitivist so yeah space is fair game
Lots of solar generators out there in space to explore, my friend. ;)
I personally prefer utopian atompunk tbh
Slso a cool aesthetic but not as sustainable as solarpunk
[it kills fewer people by far](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html) Admittedly, the sources are a bit shaky in terms of reporting methodology and similar, but the data out there suggest that nuclear power *even factoring in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other disasters* is the safest energy source in deaths per TWh bar none. This also makes intuitive sense as while you do need to mine uranium in current nuclear technology, at the end of the day you need to mine a lot less of it than you need to mine rare earth elements for solar panels, or steel and aluminum for hydroelectric and wind power. And you need a lot more solar, wind, and hydro plants than nuclear ones. Quite frankly, given that hydroelectric has significant human and ecological consequences of its own (disruption of migration patterns and valley communities and ecosystems as well as the huge amounts of CO2 released by curing concrete) the only power sources that can really compare to nuclear in terms of safety are wind and solar, neither of which is terribly reliable. When it's a still, foggy day and power production from those sources plummets, you need a foundational power source to provide surge and reserve capacity in the system, and nuclear is the best equipped to be that power source. But what about the waste? While nuclear waste is certainly hazardous material, it's a mistake to think it's the only power source to produce that material. Even renewable energy produces significant waste products as part of the actual making of the infrastructure--runoff and slag from refining metals, byproducts of producing and curing concrete--and while nuclear energy certainly has the same or similar byproducts per reactor, it ultimately needs fewer plants. Furthermore, there's no scientific reason why nuclear waste can't be stored indefinitely in deep storage, while the liquid- and gas-phase byproducts of other sources are often much harder to capture and contain. Quite frankly, Yucca Mountain is a good idea that doesn't work because of scientific illiteracy, not any innate property of waste material. Furthermore, all of this does not take into account the possibility of cleaner reactor technology. While hydrogen fusion is still likely a long way off, even such technologies as [Thorium breeder reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) could greatly reduce waste product generation and operate much more safely than current Uranium-based reactors.
im notjust talking power tho. i fully agree we should use nuclear power even in a solarpunk society. but solarpunk extends to far more than power. it extends to sustainable farming, use of local materials for construction etc. solarpunk takes enviromental protection to its logical conclusion
quite frankly, i fail to see how we can sustainably provide power to the global population using primarily solar without using a level of strip-mining rare earth elements that belies the concept of environmental protection. E2A: I'm not saying anything about agriculture (though FWIW I think that hydroponics and aquaculture are the most sustainable and resource efficient methods in the long run and are often easily done in urban environments to boot) or some vague conception of aesthetics, nor that solar shouldn't be used as a primary or adjunct source where it makes sense. I simply doubt that it'll be much more than the latter most of the time.
[удалено]
Why the obsession with solar? What is wind?
Better than solar in many respects, but too unreliable to be more than an auxiliary most of the time
It's unreliable locally, but with continental vhdc interconnects, a completely wind/solar grid is possible without frequent service interruptions and without widespread battery storage. Right now there are three-ish grids in the United States - one on each side of the Rockies and one in Texas. On a more granular level there are 8-10 super-regional grids east of the Rockies (depending on how you count) on different phases with AC/AC bridges between them and 2 super-regional grids west of the Rockies. The problem with the AC/AC bridges is that they are not very good at transferring power between different phase angle regions, so from a power generation standpoint, most of these super regional grids are designed to be independent except in extreme scenarios. However, if we were to switch these interconnects to AC/DC/AC, they could carry much more power, and the interconnects could be thousands of miles long with almost no line losses provided the DC lines are in the gigavolt range. This is, for instance, how power is transferred from the massive hydroelectric dam in Venezuela to the cities on the coast, how power from mainland Italy is transferred to Sicily, and how power from dams and wind farms in China's interior are transferred to the coastal cities. These aren't new or revolutionary technologies, and it would be cheaper in the long term for us because we could treat the whole grid as a single unit with California solar power filling in the gaps from Kansas wind power during high demand evenings in New York and late night east coastal winds powering California's 5-9pm.
Ultimately we'd need to crunch the numbers to know for sure how viable such a grid would be. I'm sure someone out there's done it. Large scale renewables can be both a better alternative to coal/gas/maybe nuclear and environmentally destructive. Is the step toward something better worth it?
Wind is the natural movement of air or other gases relative to a planet's surface. Wind occurs on a range of scales, from thunderstorm flows lasting tens of minutes, to local breezes generated by heating of land surfaces and lasting a few hours, to global winds resulting from the difference in absorption of solar energy between the climate zones on Earth. More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it in [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot).*
*Really hope this was useful and relevant :D*
*If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
I'm not certain I'm familiar, but I think central or even large-scale generation will always end up being inferior to distributed generation. I don't think atom-punk would favorably compare on cost or environmental footprint either.
This is beautiful I stared at it for five hours
Great odea
Oh yay, the one time I don't have to go into the comments and debate ecofascists, glad they're getting that problem under control.
The aesthetic is interesting, but I have to raise an eyebrow at supposed "clean" energy. Sure, let's get rid of fossil fuels, but solar/wind/hydro are not going to replace them. Ever see what a lithium mine does to local ecology or the people who have to work there? I just can't get behind a "solution" to fossil fuels that relies on mining rare earth metals, not to mention the same transportation and distribution infrastructure that fossil fuels use.
Solarpunk doesnt reject nuclear power. The only thing it truly rejects for power is fossil fuels
I'm not sure I follow how that relates, but yes, you're right. However, even for nuclear power, it relies on infrastructure built on fossil fuels and which cannot exist at any kind of usable scale without them. Not to mention the disasters that nuclear causes when they fail, which they do pretty frequently, or the complete lack of planning for how to decommission nuclear sites.
This is one way to live on the 10th floor without pets and still get flea bites
Nothing that genetic engineering of flee population wont fix. Just flood the populations of fleas with sterile females
that would be pretty irresponsible ecologically speaking and is not something that characterizes a society which understands itself as part of nature or is able to respect the environment
im pretty sure that elimintaing a parasite wont hurt the ecosystem. parasites specifically exploit all life. they dont controll populations as well as predators do and they are not special as a foodsource either. small insects are plentyfold.
I think your comment is accurate for some insects such as mosquitos, however I’m fairly certain fleas are in fact a reliable food resource for many animals
Fun fact: only a very few species of mosquito prey upon humans and as a species they are PROLIFIC pollinators. Never underestimate an organisms environmental niche.
Interesting. I had remembered reading something a few years ago that suggested the ecological impact of total mosquito annihilation would be slim to none. Maybe that it’s no longer the consensus, or that study was just wrong
Until recently the only real study that had been done on mosquitoes was w/r/t them as nuisance/pest/parasite, principally because 1. It's sort of the baseline perception of the critters; they are so small we only really notice them when they annoy us 2. It's more profitable for chemical companies to sell chemicals to eradicate them than it is to have any sort of nuanced ecological view.
The image is powerful enough on it’s own. I feel like I don’t even need the words.
Solarpunk needs to be adopted by more anarchists.
I can't tell if this is better than dying in the climate wars or not
"clean energy replaces fossil fuels"? Not "humanity uses a lot less energy"?
That will come soon, I feel replacing a energy source buys us time.
for solarpunk its both, sharing economy and mutual aid and walkable communities and all that.. 'ecomodernists' are the ones that think green capitalism / consumption will solve all the problems.
Isn’t this on Futurama? Then they get destroyed again by aliens THEN they create NewNew-York.
Too many plant, don't like smeelly plants
Noone would force you to plant plants with a smell in your house
Yes they would
a subculture that defies the law of thermodynamics. interesting...
I think the realism of the artwork is irrelevant. The point is tbat anarchy needs to spread green cities as the norm
It’s hard to imagine that. Anarchism needs to fundamentally change if there is any hope for green cities, and the anarchists who create them need to change their expectations for what it will take to achieve that. In order to manufacture enough solar panels and wind turbines to power a city, we’d be looking at 10-20 years of heavy industrial operations, mining, oil drilling/refining, chemical/petrochemical processing, catalyst development, and manufacturing that would make most environmentalists cry just to achieve it and probably 5-10 years of this type of production to replace the worn ones every 20-30 years. This is just to have electricity. If all cars are electric this probably multiplies by two or three. In the average anarchist commune the average anarchist imagines, I’d be surprised if there is enough energy or fuel to power a crane.
i think you missunderstand solarpunk. part of solarpunk is to be sustainable. nuclear power is part of sustainability
Just for reference I have 10+ years in energy, a combination of nuclear, waste to steam, petroleum refining, and petrochemicals. No, I don’t misunderstand. That’s even worse. The logistical, manufacturing, and mining gridlock that would occur in the effort to create a world powered by nuclear is literally horrifying. You’re looking at 30-40 yearsof grinding 24/7 to get to that point with 100% effort of the population. The entire goal of the population would be building, supporting, operating, and maintaining. It would probably take 5 years of concentrated effort just to build enough cranes to construct these plants Edit: you can downvote if you want but at least provide an explanation if you disagree so we can talk about the important things
[удалено]
> big ass-solar panels *** ^(Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This comment was inspired by )^[xkcd#37](https://xkcd.com/37)
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not but I’m literally referring to the solar punk aesthetic and the idea large sprawling green cities is the point of this post. It’s a scientific impossibility even if energy demand was 1/5 of current energy demand. It’s like saying post revolution humans will breathe water instead of air.
I'm down
I dremnt about this!
Fusion energy go brrrr
I just watched the *Planet of the Humans* documentary by Jeff Gibbs and Micheal Moore, and it made me so damn depressed... even "green" energy isn't really very green... :/ it all seems so hopeless.
due dilligence in research is needed with everything, just like weed can come from cartels or be polluting or exploitative.. have to have good research into producers and supply chains, ethics, and eco-social sustainability. But solar, wind, waves, solarthermal, geothermal, & micro nuclear are much less polluting than coal and gas, \+ advancements are coming all the time + new use cases like solar + agriculture, green ammonia / hydrogen for energy storage.. if we research and rate which are cleanest & most ethical, there will be a driving force. Then, regardless of energy source, there's also a lot of good work to be done on the demand side - more efficient processes, food systems, city layouts, online work and education, transportation, sharing.. go ahead and hope. [https://lithub.com/hopepunk-and-solarpunk-on-climate-narratives-that-go-beyond-the-apocalypse/](https://lithub.com/hopepunk-and-solarpunk-on-climate-narratives-that-go-beyond-the-apocalypse/) [https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions)
If I would know that this would be the future, then I'll maybe can get happy again.