" "My side?" That sure sounds like pure ideology, not science to me. In fact, you've mentioned no science, just political justifications for your opinions."

I suppose you can agree, that people with the same exact ideology can have different sides to some argument? Even in regard to their shared ideology?

The truth is you have a different ideology than I do. If I shared you ideology, you might even like me. That's because you value your ideology so much that you can't deal with people who differ with you.
I don't think ideology is particularly important.
I'm quite willing to discuss science with some guy who worships Mao. Or is a Hindu.

Now, as far as politics. Energy policy does involve politics.
The idea that "something must be done" is politics. If you want discuss what kinds of personal projects you are involved with lately. Such as all the fun you having installing solar panels and how happy this makes you feel- go for it.
I suggest the Geek Board.

"And of course, your accusation that my solution is to return to some sort of pastoral society is a convenient straw man you have erected because it can be easily defeated. Unfortunately for you, no one on "my side" has ever suggested that."

I didn't accuse you of this, instead I said:
"The only thing we get from your side is opposition to use of energy.
Where are the solutions?"

And then I indicated certain common solutions which are given, as not being "solutions".

Let me make it clearer. I would *like* to see twice amount energy used globally in 10 or 20 years, rather the same amount or less energy as is used today.

I assume you disagree.

I assume you want less or close to the same energy used per year if you could get what you wanted. Or perhaps simply slowing down current energy growth

We don't need to go over this particular difference on the issue.

But if we take your position, so the world was to use the same amount of energy or say, 10% 20% less, how could this be done without using fossil fuels.

Where are the solutions?