Gas prices - Where is gas still affordable?

Gas is obviously still way too cheap.

No, I already have a heat pump.

I can't stand this whining about rising costs for fossil energy anymore. Of course it's expensive and inconvenient, but what's the alternative? Should I tell my son in 30 years: "Sorry, the planet is just screwed, I'm stepping down now, but renewable energy was just too inconvenient for us"? Honestly, a few people will lose their homes, but at least humanity still has a chance.

If you come up with such trump arguments... I can do that too. By fathering your son, you are directly responsible for the planet dying.

No, I already have a heat pump.

but the electricity price also depends on the gas (valve), it will not decrease. Unless, according to my theory, we have successfully switched to almost 100% renewable energy, meaning we have successfully completed the energy transition. Producing your own electricity, consuming a lot locally immediately, and feeding the rest into the grid in a grid-friendly manner would be, in my opinion, a very good way for you. What you are still missing (the photovoltaic system) you can manage if you want help when you are ready.

If you come up with such killer arguments.. I can do that too.
By conceiving your son, you are directly partly responsible for the death of the planet.

The comment of course has a sarcastic core to point out the simplifications in the arguments.

But I want to say something about an assumption contained in it: The "death of the planet."

Despite all the urgency and problems caused by human-made global warming, there is practically a narrative that humanity will die out in about half a century or, worse, the entire planet will die if we don’t get moving now.

That is really nonsense. We won’t manage to kill the planet anyway, that is just a metaphor and a bad one at that.

And about humanity: Climate change creates enormous, also life-destroying problems. Salinization of farmland in river deltas, heat waves with more heat-related deaths, enormous migration movements that have to clash with already inhabited areas in a full world (conflicts), etc., droughts with food shortages due to crop failures (hunger), and so forth.

But that does not exterminate all of humanity. A species with 8 billion individuals and an adaptability and technology like humanity is not exterminable through global warming.
What can really happen is that the weakest (economically, technologically) are left behind. That is an ethical disaster. But not the extinction of humanity.

Quite cynically and unfortunately correctly, even with a decline of half, there is still as much humanity left as in the late 1970s. With minus three quarters, we are back to where the “Roaring Twenties” were.

This is not a wish of mine, but is meant to show how far away we are from the extinction of humanity, despite all problems. It’s really about the ethical intolerability that such scenarios are caused in the first place and then this mess is left for others to clean up.

The comment obviously has a sarcastic core to point out the oversimplifications in the arguments.

But I want to say something about an assumption contained in it: the "death of the planet."

Despite all the urgency and issues caused by human-made global warming, there is a narrative that humanity will die out in about half a century or worse, the entire planet will die if we don’t get moving now.

That is really nonsense. We won’t destroy the planet anyway; that is just a metaphor, and a bad one at that.

And about humanity: Climate change creates enormous, even life-destroying problems. Salinization of cultivation areas in river deltas, heatwaves with more heat deaths, enormous migration movements that have to collide with already inhabited areas in a full world (conflicts), etc., droughts with food shortages due to crop failures (hunger) and so on and so forth.

But that doesn’t wipe out all of humanity. A species with 8 billion individuals and adaptability and technology like humanity is not exterminable by global warming.
What can really happen is that the weakest (economically, technologically) get left behind. That is an ethical disaster. But not the extinction of humanity.

Quite cynically and unfortunately correctly, even with a decline of half, there is still as much humanity left as in the late 1970s. With minus three quarters, we are back at where the “roaring twenties” were.

This is not my wish, but meant to show how far we are from the extinction of humanity, despite all the problems. It’s actually about the ethical intolerability that such scenarios are caused in the first place and then others have to deal with this mess.

Exactly.
The term downfall/extinction of humanity, according to my understanding, refers to the final abandonment of the small remainder of the remaining "humanity".
Precisely that which should distinguish us from the animal kingdom, where indeed the weakest are sacrificed for the survival of the strongest.

And for the absolute misanthropes among us. The circumstances under which the "strong" then have to live are also not really worth living. Only the top 0.1% can really continue to live completely unaffected as they do today (if at all).