3 ms·

>But it's not carbon neutral I think people are confused about what carbon neutral means, in a deep philosophical sense. It's a property of a list of numbers y

>But it's not carbon neutral I think people are confused about what carbon neutral means, in a deep philosophical sense. It's a property of a list of numbers you add up. It's not a property of each of those items individually. It's like profitability, whether something is profitable depends on what is under the umbrella. Berkshire Hathaway can be profitable while one business is making a lot of money and another is losing a lot. But, say, Mens Wearhouse, couldn't deal with covid, because it didn't have, like, a videoconferencing unit. Because the issue is global climate change, caused by global CO2 levels, it makes no sense to talk about minute units of energy usage being neutral or not. It really feeds into the right wing trope about climate change being a religion, in my opinion. The idea that every facet of life should have equal carbon intensity is nutty.

retrac 6y ago
I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 30% of current emissions before the second half of this century, even if we adopted a breakneck pace. Canada cannot control anything but its own emissions, really. It is possible to run Canadian society in a way with very low carbon emissions compared to right now, while maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Given the scale of impact, primarily on the poorest peoples of the world for our material benefit, it seems a strong moral imperative to me, yes. If both are economically feasible, the choice between nuclear and natural gas for energy is not a trivial whim. It's more like choosing to strip-mine a third world country vs. a sustainable mining practice for our supply of a mineral, when both are fairly viable processes economically. It's quite blindly and unnecessarily injurious to others, just to realize a relatively small profit. Dismissing it as "minute" amounts of energy is a fallacy. It's all minute amounts of energy. When you add up how much Texans use for recreational drives on Saturday, Albertans to keep their homes 24 °C in January, the folks on Okinawa to keep their air conditioners running, and the nouveau riche of Malaysia jet-setting around the world -- it really starts to add up. You can dismiss all emissions with "it's a minute amount" with this sort of argument.

retrac 6y ago

I wouldn't consider myself particularly radical on this. I see a reasonable period for this change being about 50 years and I would not expect us to be below 30% of current emissions before the second half of this century, even if we adopted a breakneck pace. Canada cannot control anything but its own emissions, really. It is possible to run Canadian society in a way with very low carbon emissions compared to right now, while maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Given the scale of impact, primarily on the poorest peoples of the world for our material benefit, it seems a strong moral imperative to me, yes. If both are economically feasible, the choice between nuclear and natural gas for energy is not a trivial whim. It's more like choosing to strip-mine a third world country vs. a sustainable mining practice for our supply of a mineral, when both are fairly viable processes economically. It's quite blindly and unnecessarily injurious to others, just to realize a relatively small profit. Dismissing it as "minute" amounts of energy is a fallacy. It's all minute amounts of energy. When you add up how much Texans use for recreational drives on Saturday, Albertans to keep their homes 24 °C in January, the folks on Okinawa to keep their air conditioners running, and the nouveau riche of Malaysia jet-setting around the world -- it really starts to add up. You can dismiss all emissions with "it's a minute amount" with this sort of argument.