4 ms·

It's a waste of time and mental bandwidth to even think about this. The impact is just too small. Better to focus finite energy, attention and political capital

It's a waste of time and mental bandwidth to even think about this. The impact is just too small. Better to focus finite energy, attention and political capital on things that actually move the dial.

TimTheTinker 6y ago
Exactly, and this is just pragmatism at work. Sometimes I think people who blindly continue their enviro-rituals are somehow worshipping — it’s more about what it costs them than how much it actually moves the needle. Caring for the environment is not a religion, and the earth is not a god who demands sacrifice. But it is a precious resource worth protecting.
- hnracer 6y ago
  Pragmatism is a weak point of the left leaning personality (that's why many are in the arts), in the same way that low openness to experience is a weakness of the right leaning personality (that's why many work traditional administrative jobs). Jonathan Haidt brings up another reason for this. On the left and right certain things become sacred and must be treated with purity. On the left, the environment is one of the examples he talks about, so pragmatic solutions get thrown out because they're impure. This is of course a generalization but it does capture some truth.
caterama 6y ago
I was tempted to say this, but am conflicted because I still think it's important for individuals to be conscientious about their actions. Individual actions accumulate to potentially large impacts. However, in general, I agree with you. A large scale, wide impact change motivated by a 0.00005% emissions reduction that is potentially negated by the oxidizing bath and synthetic polymer is simply a distraction. Essentially, emissions from the manufacturing are a red herring and the article almost completely missed the big picture impact this could have.
soperj 6y ago
It's 5 times more thermally efficient than glass. So while the process of making glass may not produce much C02. The process of heating and cooling does.

It's a waste of time and mental bandwidth to even think about this. The impact is just too small. Better to focus finite energy, attention and political capital on things that actually move the dial.

TimTheTinker 6y ago

Exactly, and this is just pragmatism at work. Sometimes I think people who blindly continue their enviro-rituals are somehow worshipping — it’s more about what it costs them than how much it actually moves the needle. Caring for the environment is not a religion, and the earth is not a god who demands sacrifice. But it is a precious resource worth protecting.

hnracer 6y ago
Pragmatism is a weak point of the left leaning personality (that's why many are in the arts), in the same way that low openness to experience is a weakness of the right leaning personality (that's why many work traditional administrative jobs). Jonathan Haidt brings up another reason for this. On the left and right certain things become sacred and must be treated with purity. On the left, the environment is one of the examples he talks about, so pragmatic solutions get thrown out because they're impure. This is of course a generalization but it does capture some truth.

caterama 6y ago

I was tempted to say this, but am conflicted because I still think it's important for individuals to be conscientious about their actions. Individual actions accumulate to potentially large impacts. However, in general, I agree with you. A large scale, wide impact change motivated by a 0.00005% emissions reduction that is potentially negated by the oxidizing bath and synthetic polymer is simply a distraction. Essentially, emissions from the manufacturing are a red herring and the article almost completely missed the big picture impact this could have.

soperj 6y ago

It's 5 times more thermally efficient than glass. So while the process of making glass may not produce much C02. The process of heating and cooling does.