>>2927530No
>>2927515What I mean is that there is people who conveniently like to pretend ressources themselves were infinite, just as if we collectively had more supply of renewables and technology for the generation of renewables than demand, which would put the value of those things at or close to zero btw.
I'll try with an example: Imagine you were filthy rich. You'd also live a very energy intensive lifestyle. You use all your purchasing power to buy all renewable power and generators for renewable power to consume it yourself. You'll even go as far as to make up use cases, like running electric heating and A/C at the same time.
This would leave no renewable energy or generators for that on the market for anyone else. Sure you can argue where 'neccessity' begins but everyone else would definately have a few requirements they would have to turn to fossil energy to meet.
In short: Wasting renewable energy and the generators for it is wasting energy. If you found a way to remove the portion that is renewable of the market the demand it used to met would then be met by fossil, as a result of your action. If your 'use' was pointless it would be wasted.
So what do:
No individual, if they want to claim fossil-free, should use more than the global availability of renewables minus the share that goes back into producing and maintaining generators for renewables divided by the number of individuals. If everyone did that fossil would be over in no time.