It's not an either option though. If one can't have 100% clean energy right now, spending a lot more of non-renewable energy resources just because "I like to be in a t-shirt while it's -20C outside" doesn't sound very reasonable.
You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...
I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.
Although I agree that it isn't, in practicality most people do actually think that way, and have room in their heads for only one approach to a given problem.
And many people, for whatever reason, tend to prefer "solutions" that involve hating on some other part of the population. Politicians use this to great effect to avoid actually addressing problems.
This is the reason I so strongly advocate for focusing on fundamentals instead of the limited-return shame-based approaches.
You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...
I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.