3 ms·

> Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) “Protecting the environment” isn’t “fighting climate chang

> Are these environmental lawsuits really about protecting the environment (fighting climate change) “Protecting the environment” isn’t “fighting climate change.” Regardless of one’s position on the effects of CO2, that’s like suggesting that ensuring health should be entirely about how to prevent influenza. Protecting the environment includes protecting habit, stopping (actual, toxic) pollution. Climate change isn’t the end-all be-all of environmentalism. Climate change is being used at an almost religious level to justify pretty much anything climate activists deem necessary — regardless of any unintended (or subversively intended) consequences. Environmentalism doesn’t have to also mean “obsession with climate.” Some of us care deeply about the environment but also don’t have the audacity to think that the climate is changing because of humans. The climate has been changing for 4+ billion years. Of course, downvote away. Heresy is expected to be punished here. It is important that the point was made: caring about the environment can be independent of the climate change gospel.

zenexer 7y ago
It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big construction project might have a more tangible short-term impact, but if that excuse is used in every project that’s likely to have a strong positive impact on climate change, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, nothing is every black-and-white; destroying countless local ecosystems is a high cost, and it’s difficult to measure whether it’s worth that cost. How many ecosystems will be saved as a result? From any single project, probably none. From all the projects combined, maybe a lot. It’s along the lines of, “nobody else is trying to prevent calamity X, so calamity X is inevitable, and I shouldn’t try to stop it if the cost is calamity Y, where calamity Y is a more localized version of calamity X.” Well, calamity X is going to bring about calamity Y anyway if everyone has that mindset. It reminds me of the Trolley Problem [1], except the “do nothing” outcome is a long way off, and the “do something” outcome happens immediately, thereby skewing the choices. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- grawprog 7y ago
  >There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. You realize one of the main things that would help climate change is having healthy functioning ecosystems? They help with things like soil erosion, carbon sequestering, they supply much needed nutrients to soil, regulate temperature, and numerous other things that used to keep the earth balanced.
chongli 7y ago
Cars and trucks emit more than just CO2. They also emit particulates, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides in the case of diesel. Getting thousands to millions of vehicles off the road is going to dramatically reduce local pollution in addition to cutting down on CO2. Los Angeles is infamous for being a city with a lot of air pollution (particularly smog) and so cutting down on cars commuting to/from LA should be a major priority for environmentalists.
triceratops 7y ago
> the audacity to think that the climate is changing because of humans. I don't understand why that's "audacity". Climate change doesn't happen only due to geological and astronomical cycles. Organisms living on the earth have managed to change the composition of the atmosphere in the past.[1] > Climate change is being used at an almost religious level It's funny you describe it as "religious". Religion usually demands faith and doesn't require proof. There's plenty of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. Whereas deniers toss out handwavey statements like "the climate has always been changing" or conspiracy theories involving academic corruption. Who's really being religious about climate change? > Heresy is expected to be punished here A community that prizes intellectual curiosity will take a dim view of baseless denial of scientific consensus. You need proof. > caring about the environment can be independent of the climate change gospel. What are some examples of that? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
flukus 7y ago
> Climate change is being used at an almost religious level to justify pretty much anything climate activists deem necessary — regardless of any unintended (or subversively intended) consequences. Such as? Apart from some investment in renewables and more fuel efficient cars climate change activists haven't exactly achieved much.

zenexer 7y ago

It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big construction project might have a more tangible short-term impact, but if that excuse is used in every project that’s likely to have a strong positive impact on climate change, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, nothing is every black-and-white; destroying countless local ecosystems is a high cost, and it’s difficult to measure whether it’s worth that cost. How many ecosystems will be saved as a result? From any single project, probably none. From all the projects combined, maybe a lot. It’s along the lines of, “nobody else is trying to prevent calamity X, so calamity X is inevitable, and I shouldn’t try to stop it if the cost is calamity Y, where calamity Y is a more localized version of calamity X.” Well, calamity X is going to bring about calamity Y anyway if everyone has that mindset. It reminds me of the Trolley Problem [1], except the “do nothing” outcome is a long way off, and the “do something” outcome happens immediately, thereby skewing the choices. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

grawprog 7y ago
>There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. You realize one of the main things that would help climate change is having healthy functioning ecosystems? They help with things like soil erosion, carbon sequestering, they supply much needed nutrients to soil, regulate temperature, and numerous other things that used to keep the earth balanced.

chongli 7y ago

Cars and trucks emit more than just CO2. They also emit particulates, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides in the case of diesel. Getting thousands to millions of vehicles off the road is going to dramatically reduce local pollution in addition to cutting down on CO2. Los Angeles is infamous for being a city with a lot of air pollution (particularly smog) and so cutting down on cars commuting to/from LA should be a major priority for environmentalists.

triceratops 7y ago

> the audacity to think that the climate is changing because of humans. I don't understand why that's "audacity". Climate change doesn't happen only due to geological and astronomical cycles. Organisms living on the earth have managed to change the composition of the atmosphere in the past.[1] > Climate change is being used at an almost religious level It's funny you describe it as "religious". Religion usually demands faith and doesn't require proof. There's plenty of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. Whereas deniers toss out handwavey statements like "the climate has always been changing" or conspiracy theories involving academic corruption. Who's really being religious about climate change? > Heresy is expected to be punished here A community that prizes intellectual curiosity will take a dim view of baseless denial of scientific consensus. You need proof. > caring about the environment can be independent of the climate change gospel. What are some examples of that? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

flukus 7y ago

> Climate change is being used at an almost religious level to justify pretty much anything climate activists deem necessary — regardless of any unintended (or subversively intended) consequences. Such as? Apart from some investment in renewables and more fuel efficient cars climate change activists haven't exactly achieved much.