Renewable Energy

The issue of choosing renewable or conventional energy, or a combination of both, has become a much larger or more distinct part of contemporary politics, everyday practical consideration, and many people's philosophical beliefs thanks to just how much energy usage permeates our lives.  Social media and the general internet have only helped this become a more common subject of contemplation and discussion, sometimes to an irrationalistic extent (this is not at all an attack on people who genuinely care about the environment, and I will explain what I mean at the end).  Since the true difference between renewable and conventional energy is sometimes ignored, one must understand that conventional energy is, short of some sort of possible but unprovable sensory illusion (almost all sensory input is unverifiable in its independence from one's own mind), not something multiple massive cultures could endlessly depend on if they use it at a certain rate.

Yes, even according to the ideas of the current paradigm, fossil fuels are renewable, but only in the much looser sense that they naturally replenish over vast amounts of time that far exceed the duration of a single ordinary human's lifetime.  A set of enormous cultures that recklessly deplete resources like oil and natural gas in a relatively short period would have to rely on alternate energy sources, aka more directly renewable ones like wind or solar power, when possible or simply run out of conventional energy and suffer the consequences.  The concept of fossil fuels is the concept of something that only amasses into the abundance we have been drawing from over durations so long that individuals and civilizations could cease to exist thousands and thousands of times over and still not have seen the fossil fuel deposits reach their former bounty.

Now, there might be periods of lesser or no direct sunlight, so the source from which renewables come is not necessarily constant in its ability to impart energy.  What happens if stormy weather lasts for days, for instance?  Having both renewable energy and conventional energy options that can be interchangeably leaned on when the circumstance specifically calls for it is the highest form of energy preparedness humans can achieve.  Moreover, as a culture heavily reliant on fossil fuels shifts to a greater focus on explicitly renewable energy (as opposed to the technically renewable fossil fuels that have extremely drawn-out "renewal" periods), there could be a need to supplement one general type of energy with the other just to function smoothly as it is, so as to make the transition to more renewables easier.

This stems from the truth that there is no inherent conflict between using both renewable and conventional energy, only an environmental conflict between using conventional energy at a self-destructive rate and forgoing all use or contemplation of renewable energy at all.  A reason this might be perpetuated could reduce down to unfamiliarity with the concept of renewable energy in its specific forms with empirical evidence, which, when numerous individuals rely on this to intentionally oppose any change from the energy status quo of using sometimes great amounts of fossil fuels, then provides opportunities for greed-fixated corporate leaders to exploit by encouraging the status quo.  Then there is the fact that some people might get unnecesarily frightened at the thought of renewable energy and refuse to care or not hold to fallacious or contradictory ideas on the matter, which needs to be taken far more seriously by Christians at large due to the environmental ramifications of Biblical theology.  However, the tendency of some to not care about or purposefully misunderstand environmental needs does not nullify the stupidity of those who act like the environment could possibly be more important than all else.

Amidst the cultural obsession with either hyperfixating on or totally dismissing things like renewable energy or climate change, it is vital to know the objective philosophical fact that no amount of empirical evidence, personal attachment to the issue, or subjective persuasion could ever make environmentalism the central issue of ethics or metaphysics in any sense.  There is no reason to care about the seemingly inanimate planet as much as how people treat each other, and there could not be an objective obligation to care for the environment except if certain forms of theism are true, which refutes the entire basis on which many people believe things about the environment one way or another.  More foundationally, the environment is far from the inescapable core of all reality--that would be logical axioms and logical axioms alone, not even the cosmos in its entirety or the uncaused cause that created it could have this kind of ultimate centrality.