8 ms·

I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to underm

I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort. Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing. When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening. This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.

reaperducer 8y ago
People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials. Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.
- marcelluspye 8y ago
  I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.
ams6110 8y ago
I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.
- kadenshep 8y ago
  > but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. You rolled your eyes at people stopping a senseless practice that pollutes the environment? That's some next level misanthropy. >when obviously inconsequential stuff It's not inconsequential, so I'm not even sure how you can paint it as obvious. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iJ1PuR7IwqFuhkvuk7ZWYjlKfU1gjsHp https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iJ1PuR7IwqFuhkvuk7ZW... Straws are one of the top 10 items involved in beach cleanups.
  - sp332 8y ago
    It's gonna have to explain how my straw is going to magically appear on a beach.
    - intended 8y ago
      Why would anyone worry about a singular straw? Isn’t this an issue of the average/group behavior - and outcomes resulting from it?
      - sp332 8y ago
        Not one straw, my point is that straws on beaches do not come from landfills. They come from illegal dumping operations and cruise ships and maybe tourists who litter at the beach. Most people do not need to change they way they dispose of straws. This is a problem caused by a minority and no matter how few straws the rest of us use it will not address the problem even a little bit.
        dnomad 8y ago
        This is wrong. Plastics can and do escape landfills. Also it doesn't seem to be the case that all, or even most, single-use plastics are properly disposed of and make it to landfills.
        8y ago
drb91 8y ago
If what you’re saying is true, it will be obvious. I haven’t seen any backlash as you describe yet. It also seems like a different problem than single use plastic regulation.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Maybe you're not spending any time outside of San Francisco and the other major cities. There is a whole other half of America that feels very differently about all this. There's even many people in the big cities who feel this way, but they stay quiet out of fear.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    You can always just make up "the silent majority." Nobody believes it anymore.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      Yep, "the silent majority" that created The Tea Party and lead to Trump in the White House? I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) and 20-some-odd years later created "the plastic bag crisis". Now local supermarkets are making a big thing out of getting rid of plastic in favor of paper or (preferably) reusable bags.
      - dnomad 8y ago
        Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives ("And that's why Trump was elected!") but that doesn't mean these self-serving narratives have any basis in reality. The right-wing reactionaries who get hopped up about California's straw bill are not actually reacting to anything. Anti-environmentalism is part of their core identity and if they weren't whining about one bill they'd be parroting conspiracy theories about Musk. The reactionary pose is just a pose, the sort of thing teenagers do -- it's not any kind of rational position supported by the facts or intelligent analysis. > I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) You do understand that our understanding of the world evolves over time? That science progresses? Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are and in the last twenty years plastic use has exploded. Now people are trying to do something about this. This is called progress. It's not an indication of some plot but rather the natural process of discovery and change that drives civilization forwards.
noonespecial 8y ago
It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help. The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  It reminds me of some of the extreme positions the NRA has taken. Like talking about arming all teachers in response to school shootings. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights. I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
  - tgb 8y ago
    I don't think arming teachers is a good idea but I do know people that literally do. And Betsy DeVos has apparently been floating the idea of using federal funding to purchase those guns. [1] On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-guns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-g...
    - wyldfire 8y ago
      It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention. Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!" [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...
SamUK96 8y ago
To be honest, there is a virtue signalling aspect to all this, it's pretty obvious that companies exploit this to increase sales. In my very honest opinion, does anybody with a bit of sense really think the boardroom at $corp care about Gay Pride in any real and considerable way - other than to exploit customer's desire to show their virtue about it with flashy rainbow mugs? I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that? Progress never comes from deriding IMHO.
jonnyscholes 8y ago
I've never heard of this phenomenon and find it interesting as someone who does advocate for such policies from time to time. I'd love to read some reasearch on the topic if you have any? (Genuinely interested not trolling).
- DanBC 8y ago
  Have you heard of "coal rolling"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiF1UEjrE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiF1UEjrE0
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    For those who want to skip the Youtube video, it's troglodytes removing their diesel truck emissions controls in order to spout large amounts of particulates in order to appear as if their vehicle is coal fired.
kadenshep 8y ago
This morning on HN: Polluting less is actually grandstanding and curtails individual freedom. Doing something good actually pisses people off and makes them hate initiatives that constructively help a problematic situation. But it's definitely not a societal problem, American's toxic bratty attitude should be catered to so they don't get personally offended. We should definitely blame the people eliciting change. "You're making me act this way and my opinions definitely need to be respected because I have them" - The post
sidlls 8y ago
The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Really? "Don't mess with Texas was not a Democratic slogan".
Theodores 8y ago
I drink out of the same cup every time without the use of a straw - imagine that. If they stopped selling straws tomorrow it could be years before I would notice. However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'. It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast). Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going. I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices. However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.
- XorNot 8y ago
  You can also just make disposable straws out of wax-coated paper. Perfectly single-use, renewable, but biodegradable.
asntbqjkwbucaa 8y ago
Nothing personal, but I find this kind of naive ideological sentiment to be one of the least endearing features of Hacker News. For whatever reason, a lot of technical people were sold on conservative ideas under the banner of libertarianism, and it permeates any sensible conversation you try to have. The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom. It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy. Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees, you've bought the latest excuse given to reject environmental measures. These are the same people who look at the scientific evidence for climate change and actively deny it, and you're taking their reasoning against environmental legislation as if its being made in good faith. Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment. Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.
7952 8y ago
Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? Science has never been enough to pursuade people. That approach is not working. It is political and moral in exactly the same way as other contentious issues and that means that people will argue about it. I want people to virtue signal about the environment. That is better than indifference.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Give people a soap box, and they'll stand over you and lecture you.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  > Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? No, and I don't see where the GP claims that. It's inherently moral. We can avoid making the stability of our civilization a divisible issue. It takes some real work to push people against this, and stuff like forbidding people from using harmless stuff they are used to is part of that work.
pq0ak2nnd 8y ago
So basically your argument is "people will laugh if we try to increase awareness." Who are the people laughing? Trolls. Now your argument becomes "trolls will laugh if we try to increase awareness." Then you go on to claim it just invites bullying that will make things worse. So now we have, "trolls will bully us" as your argument for not raising awareness. That's just pathetic.
dplgk 8y ago
This is so spot on that I'm leaving this comment saying it's spot on with no other additions to the conversation, down votes be damned.
notafraudster 8y ago
To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to. Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt. Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever. It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  >I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them. Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp. I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit. In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side. > Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest. Imagine that. And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly. You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.

reaperducer 8y ago

People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials. Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.

marcelluspye 8y ago
I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.

ams6110 8y ago

I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.

kadenshep 8y ago
> but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. You rolled your eyes at people stopping a senseless practice that pollutes the environment? That's some next level misanthropy. >when obviously inconsequential stuff It's not inconsequential, so I'm not even sure how you can paint it as obvious. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iJ1PuR7IwqFuhkvuk7ZWYjlKfU1gjsHp https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iJ1PuR7IwqFuhkvuk7ZW... Straws are one of the top 10 items involved in beach cleanups.
- sp332 8y ago
  It's gonna have to explain how my straw is going to magically appear on a beach.
  - intended 8y ago
    Why would anyone worry about a singular straw? Isn’t this an issue of the average/group behavior - and outcomes resulting from it?
    - sp332 8y ago
      Not one straw, my point is that straws on beaches do not come from landfills. They come from illegal dumping operations and cruise ships and maybe tourists who litter at the beach. Most people do not need to change they way they dispose of straws. This is a problem caused by a minority and no matter how few straws the rest of us use it will not address the problem even a little bit.
      - dnomad 8y ago
        This is wrong. Plastics can and do escape landfills. Also it doesn't seem to be the case that all, or even most, single-use plastics are properly disposed of and make it to landfills.
        8y ago

drb91 8y ago

If what you’re saying is true, it will be obvious. I haven’t seen any backlash as you describe yet. It also seems like a different problem than single use plastic regulation.

marcoperaza 8y ago
Maybe you're not spending any time outside of San Francisco and the other major cities. There is a whole other half of America that feels very differently about all this. There's even many people in the big cities who feel this way, but they stay quiet out of fear.
- dnomad 8y ago
  You can always just make up "the silent majority." Nobody believes it anymore.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Yep, "the silent majority" that created The Tea Party and lead to Trump in the White House? I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) and 20-some-odd years later created "the plastic bag crisis". Now local supermarkets are making a big thing out of getting rid of plastic in favor of paper or (preferably) reusable bags.
    - dnomad 8y ago
      Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives ("And that's why Trump was elected!") but that doesn't mean these self-serving narratives have any basis in reality. The right-wing reactionaries who get hopped up about California's straw bill are not actually reacting to anything. Anti-environmentalism is part of their core identity and if they weren't whining about one bill they'd be parroting conspiracy theories about Musk. The reactionary pose is just a pose, the sort of thing teenagers do -- it's not any kind of rational position supported by the facts or intelligent analysis. > I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) You do understand that our understanding of the world evolves over time? That science progresses? Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are and in the last twenty years plastic use has exploded. Now people are trying to do something about this. This is called progress. It's not an indication of some plot but rather the natural process of discovery and change that drives civilization forwards.

noonespecial 8y ago

It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help. The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
It reminds me of some of the extreme positions the NRA has taken. Like talking about arming all teachers in response to school shootings. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights. I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
- tgb 8y ago
  I don't think arming teachers is a good idea but I do know people that literally do. And Betsy DeVos has apparently been floating the idea of using federal funding to purchase those guns. [1] On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-guns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-g...
  - wyldfire 8y ago
    It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention. Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!" [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...

SamUK96 8y ago

To be honest, there is a virtue signalling aspect to all this, it's pretty obvious that companies exploit this to increase sales. In my very honest opinion, does anybody with a bit of sense really think the boardroom at $corp care about Gay Pride in any real and considerable way - other than to exploit customer's desire to show their virtue about it with flashy rainbow mugs? I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that? Progress never comes from deriding IMHO.

jonnyscholes 8y ago

I've never heard of this phenomenon and find it interesting as someone who does advocate for such policies from time to time. I'd love to read some reasearch on the topic if you have any? (Genuinely interested not trolling).

DanBC 8y ago
Have you heard of "coal rolling"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiF1UEjrE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiF1UEjrE0
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  For those who want to skip the Youtube video, it's troglodytes removing their diesel truck emissions controls in order to spout large amounts of particulates in order to appear as if their vehicle is coal fired.

kadenshep 8y ago

This morning on HN: Polluting less is actually grandstanding and curtails individual freedom. Doing something good actually pisses people off and makes them hate initiatives that constructively help a problematic situation. But it's definitely not a societal problem, American's toxic bratty attitude should be catered to so they don't get personally offended. We should definitely blame the people eliciting change. "You're making me act this way and my opinions definitely need to be respected because I have them" - The post

sidlls 8y ago

The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.

tomjen3 8y ago
Really? "Don't mess with Texas was not a Democratic slogan".

Theodores 8y ago

I drink out of the same cup every time without the use of a straw - imagine that. If they stopped selling straws tomorrow it could be years before I would notice. However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'. It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast). Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going. I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices. However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.

XorNot 8y ago
You can also just make disposable straws out of wax-coated paper. Perfectly single-use, renewable, but biodegradable.

asntbqjkwbucaa 8y ago

Nothing personal, but I find this kind of naive ideological sentiment to be one of the least endearing features of Hacker News. For whatever reason, a lot of technical people were sold on conservative ideas under the banner of libertarianism, and it permeates any sensible conversation you try to have. The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom. It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy. Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.

darpa_escapee 8y ago

You're missing the forest for the trees, you've bought the latest excuse given to reject environmental measures. These are the same people who look at the scientific evidence for climate change and actively deny it, and you're taking their reasoning against environmental legislation as if its being made in good faith. Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment. Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.

7952 8y ago

Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? Science has never been enough to pursuade people. That approach is not working. It is political and moral in exactly the same way as other contentious issues and that means that people will argue about it. I want people to virtue signal about the environment. That is better than indifference.

stephengillie 8y ago
Give people a soap box, and they'll stand over you and lecture you.
marcosdumay 8y ago
> Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? No, and I don't see where the GP claims that. It's inherently moral. We can avoid making the stability of our civilization a divisible issue. It takes some real work to push people against this, and stuff like forbidding people from using harmless stuff they are used to is part of that work.

pq0ak2nnd 8y ago

So basically your argument is "people will laugh if we try to increase awareness." Who are the people laughing? Trolls. Now your argument becomes "trolls will laugh if we try to increase awareness." Then you go on to claim it just invites bullying that will make things worse. So now we have, "trolls will bully us" as your argument for not raising awareness. That's just pathetic.

dplgk 8y ago

This is so spot on that I'm leaving this comment saying it's spot on with no other additions to the conversation, down votes be damned.

notafraudster 8y ago

To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to. Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt. Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever. It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.

finnthehuman 8y ago
>I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them. Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.
candiodari 8y ago
Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp. I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit. In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side. > Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one. Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest. Imagine that. And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly. You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.