sitting in the dark, freezing to death, and starving for lack of agriculture.

One less useless eater.

While nuclear plants and coal-fired plants are made of gossamer silk, transported by elves and fairies.

I see what the author is saying, but just stopping the use of solar and wind and continuing the use of fossil fuels and nukes is not the answer.
Unless, of course, one profits by that.

My impression is that he's tired of the relentless cheerleading, and of being asked to buy into a "solution" that is manifestly nothing of the sort.

All energy use by human beings is either directly or indirectly damaging to the biosphere to some degree, no matter what the source.

In point #3 he says, "This system needs to not be sustained, but stopped." The implication is that the system can in fact be stopped. I disagree - the system of modern globalized techno-industrial civilization cannot be stopped, and its growth will be maintained at all costs. That's why we're not a sustainable species, and are destined for the dustbin of evolutionary history sooner rather than later.

Reminds me of a sci-fi book I read a long time ago that posited a future where mankind was forced to live in a way that harmed no other living thing - everyone shuffled around in white, with gas masks, sort of a Jain thing.

Did you choose the parts you agree with, or the parts you don't?

Humans in the first world use electricity. Heck, they even waste a lot of it. And they want 'things', things created by 'industries that are destroying the planet'. They'll continue to do so no matter the source of the energy used to do so.

The parts you're quoting aren't an argument against renewable energy. They're an argument for negative population growth, couched in a way that tries to suggest that switching over to renewables is pointless.

If the point is to "solve" the ecological crisis of modern civilization, then switching over to renewables is indeed pointless, as the crisis goes far beyond the simple question of energy sources. The usefulness of renewable energy gets conflated with "solving the problem", which it will not do.

Solving the larger problem would require us to reduce both human numbers and activity to pre-agricultural levels. Since such a reduction is neither possible nor desirable, we won't do it. That simple fact makes collapse inevitable - no matter how many whirligigs we build.

Post-agricultural humans won't willingly retreat to pre-agricultural standards of living. They will have to be forced to do so by collapse. The sources of energy don't even matter.

At any rate, I think those in power see it coming already, hence the militarization of police forces across the nation to deal with 'crowd control' when the same sorts of riots that happen overseas hit US shores as resources become ever more expensive. Barring some incredible technological advance, there will be a massive human die-off as a result of the ways in which we've already screwed up the climate.

"The emissions reductions that renewables intend to achieve could be easily accomplished by improving the efficiency of existing coal plants, at a much lower cost. "

Instead of investing in renewable energy, we just make coal more efficient and keep digging coal out of the earth and creating coal ash and massive carbon emissions.

Good catch. That is one monumentally stupid conclusion to come to.

No proof, of course.

After going on at length about how damaging renewables are in their creation and their development, it comes to a conclusion that the answer is to burn more coal.

It smells like coal dust to me.

You can find the same author making this point more explicitly, but including most of these points, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112771334

'Kim' is just saying that renewables are just as despicable in their view as coal.

I hope, at least, it will be painless.

The planet-wide physical, environmental, ecological and social fabric is what makes continued human existence possible. If/when that fabric tears, the human race will be either diminished or extinguished, depending on how severe the damage turns out to be. It's not a question of anyone planning our demise.

Humanity is collectively ignoring or misinterpreting the converging existential threats. I think of us as back-country skiers. Whether through hubris, ignorance or short-sightedness we have entered the avalanche zone. Once we hear the rumble it will be too late.

No death - whether individual or collective, planned or unplanned - is ever entirely painless. That's life.