4 ms·

Also I would argue that the smug truisms that people spout such as "divestment won't solve climate change" have a very damaging effect on causes that require co

Also I would argue that the smug truisms that people spout such as "divestment won't solve climate change" have a very damaging effect on causes that require concerted action by the public. For example the "Penn & Teller Bull$#!@: Recycling" episode left many viewers under the impression that recycling is a waste of time because it's not mature yet and is sometimes mismanaged. That probably lowered global recycling by some small percentage over several years. A tremendous negative impact in the scheme of things, for a couple guys trying to be funny. It's generally bad form to undermine causes via pedantry, for example: * Nobody should listen to Al Gore about global warming because he flies a private jet! * We can't raise taxes on cigarettes because people will just buy them anyway no matter how much they cost! * Why bother preventing deforestation when nature does what it wants with forest fires anyway! Yet we hear these sorts of arguments right here on HN on practically every submission. Better to at least try to be part of the solution than use criticism as an excuse to do nothing, IMHO.

triceratops 7y ago
I'm not saying "do nothing". I think legislation is a better tool to fix this problem and everyone's time would be best spent on working on that. > Nobody should listen to Al Gore about global warming because he flies a private jet! Well, I think we should still listen to him. He could also fly first-class and set a better example. But average Joe passenger won't fly less just because "it's good for the planet". He will fly less if it starts to cost more because of a carbon tax. > We can't raise taxes on cigarettes because people will just buy them anyway no matter how much they cost! That's not true in the slightest; cigarette consumption is inversely correlated to taxes. A cigarette tax is the opposite of individual action. I'm strongly in support of a carbon tax. > Why bother preventing deforestation when nature does what it wants with forest fires anyway! That's...a super-weird statement to make in the context of what I said. Preventing deforestation can't be accomplished with individual action e.g. by boycotting Amazon-grown soy or something. You need laws and tariffs. FWIW I also recycle and try to keep up with the latest and greatest on plastic sorting. But I also know it doesn't do anything in the big picture. Add a $10 fine for badly sorted recycling and the problem will fix itself.
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Ya I'm right there with you. Good points!

triceratops 7y ago

I'm not saying "do nothing". I think legislation is a better tool to fix this problem and everyone's time would be best spent on working on that. > Nobody should listen to Al Gore about global warming because he flies a private jet! Well, I think we should still listen to him. He could also fly first-class and set a better example. But average Joe passenger won't fly less just because "it's good for the planet". He will fly less if it starts to cost more because of a carbon tax. > We can't raise taxes on cigarettes because people will just buy them anyway no matter how much they cost! That's not true in the slightest; cigarette consumption is inversely correlated to taxes. A cigarette tax is the opposite of individual action. I'm strongly in support of a carbon tax. > Why bother preventing deforestation when nature does what it wants with forest fires anyway! That's...a super-weird statement to make in the context of what I said. Preventing deforestation can't be accomplished with individual action e.g. by boycotting Amazon-grown soy or something. You need laws and tariffs. FWIW I also recycle and try to keep up with the latest and greatest on plastic sorting. But I also know it doesn't do anything in the big picture. Add a $10 fine for badly sorted recycling and the problem will fix itself.

zackmorris 7y ago
Ya I'm right there with you. Good points!