Thread by @homemadeguitars

The author of this article appears to believe that the things she demands can be built and installed without any increase in current fossil fuel generating capacity and emissions to do the work.
I'd like to see that explained. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

2. We, as a nation, barely have enough generating capacity to serve the current demand.
This is why in various regions there are requests from electric utilities that users reduce their "peak" demand. Set the thermostat warmer to reduce A/C demand.

3. If 90% of new cars sold are electric, demand on fossil fuel generating facilities will increase.
If we launch a "Manhattan Project" scale, wind and solar powered, nationwide generating infrastructure, that construction will be powered by current technology.
It's what we have.

4. Unless there is a parallel scheduled reduction in electrical demand, current technology generation capacity will have to be increased.
Where renewables are being built now, fossil generating capacity must increase. Brand new coal powered plant in China pictured below.

5. And - none of it, none of what she demands, even if it were immaculately conceived and did not require factories, trucks, highways, or new power plants, even then - none of it reduces emissions this year, or next, or the one after that, or the next one...
By 2030, she claims.

6. Essentially nobody in the "climate activist" community knows that it takes energy to manufacture stuff, the bigger the stuff, the more energy.
Which we get from fossil fuels. Right now today.
Makes it seem easy.
It ain't.
Oh well.