3 ms·
Why does everyone seem to think 'damage to the environment' is some scale with intensity that can be mitigated by simply removing or lowering some kind of damag
by grawprog 6y ago
Why does everyone seem to think 'damage to the environment' is some scale with intensity that can be mitigated by simply removing or lowering some kind of damage.
This ignores the kind of damage being caused. In the case of the article, they're talking about chemical runoff from lithium mines into waterways.
Just because you stop burning fossil fuels, doesn't mean those waterways are going to magically stop being polluted, or that the pollution in those waterways won't have drastic effects on ecosystems.
Every time we damage the planet, we damage it. Polluting waterways on one side of the world won't be mitigated by curbing fossil fuel addiction elsewhere.
- nine_k 6y agoEverything in life is a compromise. If you can damage waterways a bit while preventing the thermal runoff which renders most tropical areas uninhabitable, it might be the lesser evil you'd have to choose. A lesser evil is an evil nevertheless, it's true. But being lesser, it's easier to overcome later.