5 ms·

By your definition simply existing is not green. It's not a matter of absolutes, but degrees. Between green and fossil fuels, even account for construction, the

• ghaff 7y ago
  You can't compare apples to apples but dams that have big negative ecological effects and don't actually produce much power would seem to be net negatives from an overall "green" perspective. There are also other effects including flood control, recreation, effect on local communities, water supply, etc. that can go in plus and minus columns but dams are absolutely not always net positives.
  • jimktrains2 7y ago
    Sure, I'm not saying damns have no consequences. I'm saying that it's silly to declare them "not green" because of the existence of environmental consequences because there are consequences to everything we do. Damns are not a perfect solution, but compared to the ecological costs of coal mining, gas extraction, and burning of Fossil fuels, I feel it's disingenuous to just dismiss them out of hand for not being "green".
    • mikeash 7y ago
      The comment wasn’t declaring them to be “not-green” because of the mere existence of environmental consequences. It was doing so because of the large magnitude of those consequences. There’s probably a good argument to be made that they’re worth it, but the original statement was fine too.
      • WorldMaker 7y ago
        "Not green by default" might have been a better phrasing? They can still be much more green compared to alternatives. "Green" isn't a binary, and that seems to be the crux of both arguments above.
      • AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
        > large magnitude Large magnitude in proportion to small return.