4 ms·

That's like saying the blame for pollution caused by burning coal lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone who uses electricity. Decisions are made, 99% of peo

That's like saying the blame for pollution caused by burning coal lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone who uses electricity. Decisions are made, 99% of people have no clue what's going, and it's unreasonable to expect them to.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Consumers must take some of the blame surely? If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it. If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company. IMO ordinary members of the public take more responsibility in that because it's relatively straightforward to understand: buy your electric from renewable generation and get less negative environmental impact. Understanding the best sources of power is hard however, so consumers have to trust published government research for that.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  The comment I responded to was quite clear about placing "all" of the blame on consumers, but sure; we all share some responsibility. The problem is that placing the blame on consumers will get you precisely nowhere. >If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it. Most people are struggling just to get by. Expecting their votes to be driven by large, complex issues which on their surface do not seem to impact their lives directly or immediately (or actually don't at all) is wishful thinking. The vast majority of people don't understand these issues to begin with. >If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company Where do you live where you have competing electrical companies? Of you're proposing that they spend money on e.g. solar or electric cars, well... I think you're a bit out of touch with the general populace. We don't live in a world where paycheck to paycheck workers can afford such things. It has to be cheap and easy or you're just not going to get anywhere. Same goes for something like DRM; until it causes huge problems with the way most people consume content, well, they won't care, and complaining about that is a waste of energy. Problems like these require smaller groups of dedicated and informed individuals to help make change and educate others. It does actually work. The US has much better environmental policy than it did 50 years ago and people are more informed now then they we're then. It's just slow, and tech related issues are relatively new.
- klyrs 8y ago
  No. The owners of coal mines, and the owners of coal power plants, are to blame. That specific industry has come at a terrible cost of human life and the environment, which wasn't even news last century. The people with the money and power to get a coal plant built, are to blame. I don't have choice in where I get my power. Lobbyists pay politicians to decide where my electricity is generated. If you started cooking meth tomorrow, and sold it on the market, do you blame the users who bought it? No, the origin of the problem is the industry built around pushing the product.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation. Meth isn't really a comparable need. However, suppose dodgy crack (cut with crap), or paracetamol, was available for treating headaches: you can choose the paracetamol which makes you partially responsible for keeping the dodgy crack producers/dealers in business if you choose their product.
    - klyrs 8y ago
      > You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation. I live in a representative democracy with extremely limited and polarized choice of politicians, ALL of whom are taking money from big oil. Unfortunate, indeed -- my lack of choice harms the entire world. And no, meth is a great analogy: sure increases productivity, damn the consequences

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Consumers must take some of the blame surely? If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it. If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company. IMO ordinary members of the public take more responsibility in that because it's relatively straightforward to understand: buy your electric from renewable generation and get less negative environmental impact. Understanding the best sources of power is hard however, so consumers have to trust published government research for that.

EpicEng 8y ago
The comment I responded to was quite clear about placing "all" of the blame on consumers, but sure; we all share some responsibility. The problem is that placing the blame on consumers will get you precisely nowhere. >If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it. Most people are struggling just to get by. Expecting their votes to be driven by large, complex issues which on their surface do not seem to impact their lives directly or immediately (or actually don't at all) is wishful thinking. The vast majority of people don't understand these issues to begin with. >If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company Where do you live where you have competing electrical companies? Of you're proposing that they spend money on e.g. solar or electric cars, well... I think you're a bit out of touch with the general populace. We don't live in a world where paycheck to paycheck workers can afford such things. It has to be cheap and easy or you're just not going to get anywhere. Same goes for something like DRM; until it causes huge problems with the way most people consume content, well, they won't care, and complaining about that is a waste of energy. Problems like these require smaller groups of dedicated and informed individuals to help make change and educate others. It does actually work. The US has much better environmental policy than it did 50 years ago and people are more informed now then they we're then. It's just slow, and tech related issues are relatively new.
klyrs 8y ago
No. The owners of coal mines, and the owners of coal power plants, are to blame. That specific industry has come at a terrible cost of human life and the environment, which wasn't even news last century. The people with the money and power to get a coal plant built, are to blame. I don't have choice in where I get my power. Lobbyists pay politicians to decide where my electricity is generated. If you started cooking meth tomorrow, and sold it on the market, do you blame the users who bought it? No, the origin of the problem is the industry built around pushing the product.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation. Meth isn't really a comparable need. However, suppose dodgy crack (cut with crap), or paracetamol, was available for treating headaches: you can choose the paracetamol which makes you partially responsible for keeping the dodgy crack producers/dealers in business if you choose their product.
  - klyrs 8y ago
    > You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation. I live in a representative democracy with extremely limited and polarized choice of politicians, ALL of whom are taking money from big oil. Unfortunate, indeed -- my lack of choice harms the entire world. And no, meth is a great analogy: sure increases productivity, damn the consequences