How do social conflicts arising from energy consumption (local communities vs. global climate movements) influence value perception?

This situation is actually like a family argument, and what they're arguing about are fundamental issues like how to spend money and how to live life, only magnified countless times.

On one side, there's the local community, concerned with their "doorstep." On the other, there's the global climate movement, focused on "the future of all humanity." These two groups are clashing over energy consumption, and how they see "what's important" and "what's good" profoundly impacts each of us.

Let's illustrate with a very specific example: Bitcoin mining.

Imagine a place where the economy might not be doing so well, perhaps in decline. Suddenly, a company comes in and builds a large Bitcoin "mine."

For the local community, this could mean:

• Jobs and livelihoods: Immediate job opportunities for electricians, security guards, maintenance workers. The government also receives tangible tax revenue, which can be used to build roads or improve schools.
• A sense of "revival": A previously quiet place now has investment and activity, giving people hope for a better future.

In their eyes, the "value" of this high-energy-consuming mine is survival, employment, and development. These are tangible benefits, representing tomorrow's lunch and their children's tuition fees.

But for participants in the global climate movement, they see:

• Enormous energy waste: Bitcoin mining consumes an astonishing amount of electricity, often from coal-fired or fossil fuel power plants, directly increasing carbon emissions.
• Accelerated climate warming: Global warming leads to extreme weather and rising sea levels, threatening the future of all humanity.
• Unfair burden: This one region, pursuing short-term economic gains, is making the entire world (including the poorest and most vulnerable nations) bear the brunt of climate change.

In their eyes, the "value" of this mine is negative, an irresponsible act towards the planet and the future. They prioritize sustainability, global justice, and the well-being of future generations.

So, the conflict arises. How does this conflict change our "value perception"?

1. "Camp formation" and "radicalization" of values: Originally, "economic development" and "environmental protection" didn't have to be enemies. But as the conflict intensifies, people start taking sides. Locals might feel environmentalists are "out of touch and impractical," while environmentalists might see locals as "short-sighted and selfish." People stop trying to find a balance and instead believe the other side's values are wrong and must be defeated. Our perception shifts from "this is a complex issue" to "are you with us, or with them?"

2. Drastic swings in value priorities: This situation forces us to answer a very sharp question: Is an immediate livelihood more important, or are rising sea levels decades from now? For an unemployed worker, the answer is almost singular. For an affluent urban youth concerned about the future, the answer might be completely opposite. This conflict creates immense confusion and wavering about what we've always considered important. We begin to question whether the things we've always valued are truly that important.

3. Crisis of trust in "experts" and "grand narratives": When global climate scientists present data warning that "the Earth is doomed if things continue this way," local community members might point to their newly built school and say, "But our lives have improved!" They begin to distrust those distant "experts" and "global reports," feeling they are empty words, less important than the real feelings within their own community. This leads us to doubt science and grand "values" like global cooperation, making us more inclined to trust the "values" within our small circles.

4. Redefining "good" and "bad": A high-energy-consuming project might be seen as "hope for development" and "good" by locals, but as a "scar on the Earth" and "bad" by environmental organizations. The same thing is labeled with completely opposite values. This can make us feel confused; our past simple notions like "saving energy is a virtue" or "industrial development is good" are completely shattered. We find that in today's world, judging whether something is good or bad depends on your perspective and whose interests you represent.

In summary, social conflicts triggered by energy consumption are like a large stone thrown into the calm lake of our value perception. It shows us that "value" is not a unified standard answer, but full of contradictions and trade-offs. It places "distant cries" and "immediate bread" side by side, forcing us to think and choose, a process that is often painful and divisive. Ultimately, if everyone values different things, how can we sit down and have a proper discussion? That's the most troublesome part.