3 ms·

I think this is some sort of falacy. Everything pollutes, but substituting something polluting a lot, with something polluting half as much, can make a big diff

I think this is some sort of falacy. Everything pollutes, but substituting something polluting a lot, with something polluting half as much, can make a big difference. There are lots of gains to be had in the amount things pollute.

cogman10 6y ago
I see this come up really frequently when talking about environmental impact "We can't replace X with Y because Y has negative environmental impacts!" Never mind the fact that Y might be a lot better for the environment than X in the long run. A good example of this is hydro power. Yes, concrete emits a lot of CO2. Yes, dams negatively impact fish. Yes, rotting dam algae emit CO2. But you know what? None of that matters, because dams emit far less CO2 than comparable coal plants and, as a bonus, dams work really well with solar/wind because they can ramp with demand. They are basically giant batteries that self fill. Nuclear falls well within the same bucket of "Yes, it has negative impacts, those are far less than global warming". For example, nuclear powered shipping would be a huge positive for the environment. Bunker fuel is one of the worst things we spew into the atmosphere.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  I feel this is a really deep problem in our society that is a core contributing factor to all sorts of problems. We can’t build major public works projects, can’t build enough housing, can’t execute on anti-pandemic measures. Any big public endeavor is mired in veto points where any issue, no matter how minor compared to the upsides, can lead to delays or total failure of the project. It seems like only private companies can get anything done. It’s good that somebody is able to get things done, but it would be better if that somebody had a charter to act in the public’s interest first.
  - cogman10 6y ago
    To add a confounding factor, the public's best interests aren't generally private entities best interest. They know this and lobby/advertise/etc to get public opinion and officials on their side. There's plenty examples of this. For example, early on when nuclear came out fossil fuel companies spent a LOT of money spreading FUD about nuclear. Much of that still exists today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

cogman10 6y ago

I see this come up really frequently when talking about environmental impact "We can't replace X with Y because Y has negative environmental impacts!" Never mind the fact that Y might be a lot better for the environment than X in the long run. A good example of this is hydro power. Yes, concrete emits a lot of CO2. Yes, dams negatively impact fish. Yes, rotting dam algae emit CO2. But you know what? None of that matters, because dams emit far less CO2 than comparable coal plants and, as a bonus, dams work really well with solar/wind because they can ramp with demand. They are basically giant batteries that self fill. Nuclear falls well within the same bucket of "Yes, it has negative impacts, those are far less than global warming". For example, nuclear powered shipping would be a huge positive for the environment. Bunker fuel is one of the worst things we spew into the atmosphere.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I feel this is a really deep problem in our society that is a core contributing factor to all sorts of problems. We can’t build major public works projects, can’t build enough housing, can’t execute on anti-pandemic measures. Any big public endeavor is mired in veto points where any issue, no matter how minor compared to the upsides, can lead to delays or total failure of the project. It seems like only private companies can get anything done. It’s good that somebody is able to get things done, but it would be better if that somebody had a charter to act in the public’s interest first.
- cogman10 6y ago
  To add a confounding factor, the public's best interests aren't generally private entities best interest. They know this and lobby/advertise/etc to get public opinion and officials on their side. There's plenty examples of this. For example, early on when nuclear came out fossil fuel companies spent a LOT of money spreading FUD about nuclear. Much of that still exists today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement