3 ms·

I want to (and do) spend money to lessen our impact on the environment, and I want to do more, but I've met environmentalists who unironically wish that humanit

I want to (and do) spend money to lessen our impact on the environment, and I want to do more, but I've met environmentalists who unironically wish that humanity would cease to exist. I am not interested in appeasing them. I am doubly uninterested in environmental policy that encourages bad options over much-better-but-still-imperfect options.

caymanjim 6y ago
Anti-nuclear environmentalists are directly responsible for our continued over-reliance on fossil fuels. Add anti-damming and anti-windfarm environmentalists into the mix, and the environmental movement is anything but.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Fossil fuel are terrible, but nuclear energy is arguably just as terrible. Also, nuclear energy (like most pretend-green energies) does not work without considerable amounts of fossil fuels, from extraction to actual energy production. If only that, building a nuclear facility is going to take a lot of fossil fuel to power the machines, and use a lot of concrete, which requires even more fossil fuel to produce and bring over. Water and wind turbines are a little different. Their ecological impact depends on their size. The problem here is most countries insist on urbanization which concentrates energy production and therefore tends to centralize energy production away from usage, in big power stations. Producing a little electricity with turbines has a quasi-null environmental impact, and is good for local usage for a small village. You'll find that people on the countryside are opposing industry's project not because they're new and ugly, but because they have actual concerns about the damage produced by such installations. How much resources does it take to build a wind turbine? How many tons of concrete does it take to anchor so many tons of steel? How does this considerable of concrete affect the local ecosystem? People are not entirely stupid. They protest the nuclear industry and windfarms because they've seen the damage, and they understand these proposals do not bring required change. We need momentum to reduce energy/resources usage, not to produce ever more energy. If you want to understand why many people from here (France) strongly oppose nuclear power, i recommend you do some reading on Areva's many failures (engineering-wise) and on Françafrique, the french neocolonial system which ensures uranium supplies.
  - caymanjim 6y ago
    You've demonstrated my point. You're pointing out some valid concerns. They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Environmentalists make perfect the enemy of good every time.
    - southerntofu 6y ago
      > They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Weighing options is a good stance, but i'm pretty sure "insignificant" is not the word to describe problems caused by the nuclear industry. I don't want to sound judgy, but feel free to do some reading on the topic. Also, you seem to dismiss my central point that nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Even if that were the case, what is it powering? Almost all these electric devices use lithium which also takes a lot of fossil fuel to extract and refine. It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car and feed it over its lifetime (accounting for the short life of electric batteries), depending on how energy is produced. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be just as bad as a combustion car. For hybrids, it's not even a debate as they get the environmental downsides of both worlds.
      - jjoonathan 6y ago
        The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the install base of wind. If it were equally problematic, you should expect 10x the problems. The ratio is probably higher in France. > nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Ditto wind, ditto solar. They are considerably worse once you divide by the power they actually produce, as you should. With wind, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers a neighborhood, some of the time. With nuclear, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers multiple cities, all of the time. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footpr... > It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car Dude, this is electric car 101 stuff. If you haven't found these studies, it's because you weren't looking.
- hoseja 6y ago
  Dams are pretty awful for the landscape.
southerntofu 6y ago
> environmentalists who unironically wish that humanity would cease to exist Sure these people exist, but they are a tiny minority. This is just a sick form of neo-malthusianism which fails to understand climate change as a symptom of industrial capitalism. Aiming to destroy humanity is the logical conclusion of analyzing our era as "anthropocene", not "capitalocene". > I want to (and do) spend money to lessen our impact on the environment Unfortunately, environmental damage cannot be fixed with money. We need to address the root problems causing the damage. Use less resources, build more durable items and reuse them as long as possible, and only employ somewhat-recyclable materials. Planned obsolescence is a crime against nature and humanity. Beyond every day items, urbanization a great factor of environmental damage. Concrete is a huge problem and so-called "developed" countries keep on using more every year, but for what benefit to humanity? There's already millions of empty housing units, we don't need more buildings: we need social change. > I am doubly uninterested in environmental policy that encourages bad options over much-better-but-still-imperfect options. Agreed, it's interesting to explore these imperfect options. But government policies around the globe concerning climate are not "imperfect options", they're actively contributing to the problem by refusing to stop infinite growth, and trying to reconcile greed and common good through green capitalism, the green new deal and what not. Looking at the whole lifecycle of a solar panel (with the current technology), how could someone call them green. Same goes for electric cars. If the industry used less materials, less-harmful materials, and recyclable materials, the situation would be less terrible than it is today. We are currently paying for them to poison us and destroy the land. In most countries rivers are now considered undrinkable according to safety standards. The system is broken.

caymanjim 6y ago

Anti-nuclear environmentalists are directly responsible for our continued over-reliance on fossil fuels. Add anti-damming and anti-windfarm environmentalists into the mix, and the environmental movement is anything but.

southerntofu 6y ago
Fossil fuel are terrible, but nuclear energy is arguably just as terrible. Also, nuclear energy (like most pretend-green energies) does not work without considerable amounts of fossil fuels, from extraction to actual energy production. If only that, building a nuclear facility is going to take a lot of fossil fuel to power the machines, and use a lot of concrete, which requires even more fossil fuel to produce and bring over. Water and wind turbines are a little different. Their ecological impact depends on their size. The problem here is most countries insist on urbanization which concentrates energy production and therefore tends to centralize energy production away from usage, in big power stations. Producing a little electricity with turbines has a quasi-null environmental impact, and is good for local usage for a small village. You'll find that people on the countryside are opposing industry's project not because they're new and ugly, but because they have actual concerns about the damage produced by such installations. How much resources does it take to build a wind turbine? How many tons of concrete does it take to anchor so many tons of steel? How does this considerable of concrete affect the local ecosystem? People are not entirely stupid. They protest the nuclear industry and windfarms because they've seen the damage, and they understand these proposals do not bring required change. We need momentum to reduce energy/resources usage, not to produce ever more energy. If you want to understand why many people from here (France) strongly oppose nuclear power, i recommend you do some reading on Areva's many failures (engineering-wise) and on Françafrique, the french neocolonial system which ensures uranium supplies.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  You've demonstrated my point. You're pointing out some valid concerns. They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Environmentalists make perfect the enemy of good every time.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Weighing options is a good stance, but i'm pretty sure "insignificant" is not the word to describe problems caused by the nuclear industry. I don't want to sound judgy, but feel free to do some reading on the topic. Also, you seem to dismiss my central point that nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Even if that were the case, what is it powering? Almost all these electric devices use lithium which also takes a lot of fossil fuel to extract and refine. It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car and feed it over its lifetime (accounting for the short life of electric batteries), depending on how energy is produced. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be just as bad as a combustion car. For hybrids, it's not even a debate as they get the environmental downsides of both worlds.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the install base of wind. If it were equally problematic, you should expect 10x the problems. The ratio is probably higher in France. > nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Ditto wind, ditto solar. They are considerably worse once you divide by the power they actually produce, as you should. With wind, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers a neighborhood, some of the time. With nuclear, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers multiple cities, all of the time. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footpr... > It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car Dude, this is electric car 101 stuff. If you haven't found these studies, it's because you weren't looking.
hoseja 6y ago
Dams are pretty awful for the landscape.

southerntofu 6y ago

> environmentalists who unironically wish that humanity would cease to exist Sure these people exist, but they are a tiny minority. This is just a sick form of neo-malthusianism which fails to understand climate change as a symptom of industrial capitalism. Aiming to destroy humanity is the logical conclusion of analyzing our era as "anthropocene", not "capitalocene". > I want to (and do) spend money to lessen our impact on the environment Unfortunately, environmental damage cannot be fixed with money. We need to address the root problems causing the damage. Use less resources, build more durable items and reuse them as long as possible, and only employ somewhat-recyclable materials. Planned obsolescence is a crime against nature and humanity. Beyond every day items, urbanization a great factor of environmental damage. Concrete is a huge problem and so-called "developed" countries keep on using more every year, but for what benefit to humanity? There's already millions of empty housing units, we don't need more buildings: we need social change. > I am doubly uninterested in environmental policy that encourages bad options over much-better-but-still-imperfect options. Agreed, it's interesting to explore these imperfect options. But government policies around the globe concerning climate are not "imperfect options", they're actively contributing to the problem by refusing to stop infinite growth, and trying to reconcile greed and common good through green capitalism, the green new deal and what not. Looking at the whole lifecycle of a solar panel (with the current technology), how could someone call them green. Same goes for electric cars. If the industry used less materials, less-harmful materials, and recyclable materials, the situation would be less terrible than it is today. We are currently paying for them to poison us and destroy the land. In most countries rivers are now considered undrinkable according to safety standards. The system is broken.