Don't forget the hypocrisy of wanting other people to do their bit to combat climate change while you fly in your private jet and use the excuse that one person's contribution is insignificant...

That is in an energy conservatist framework.

If you fly to a conference to advocate nuclear power and synthetic fuels, it would be congruent.

That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.

Well, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY.

Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.

>Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear.

I took this to be an either or statement, apologies if that was not your intention.

>Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both?

Overhauling the entire energy system is a huge effort, even more so when the demands grow year after year. Hitting that target in the requisite timeframe is much easier if the energy demands are lessened through conservation.

åh, I understand. the latter part of my comment was the simpler "edgy" statement.

and yes, I completely agree with your assessment around the overhauling effort.