4 ms·
I’d start with the ones that are clearly doing irreversible harm. Think of a coal burning plant to produce electricity or deforestation of hundreds of acres in
by OgAstorga 5y ago
I’d start with the ones that are clearly doing irreversible harm. Think of a coal burning plant to produce electricity or deforestation of hundreds of acres in the Amazon to build more IKEA furniture.
- curryst 5y agoThat's still not very clear. Almost anything is reversible on a long enough timeline. Coal can be replenished on a long timeline, and the CO2 can be scrubbed. Until it can't, but it's rather spurious to try to assign blame to a single point. The coal plant is emitting CO2, but they'll say "well, it would have been fine except for trans-oceanic shipping". The shippers will point to the coal people. Likewise, the Amazon can be reforested. Maybe not at the rate were cutting it down, but it's not as though trees will never be able to grow there again. There needs to be a more nuanced decision around these. I'm with you, those things are bad and they should stop, but I would prefer to have a coherent framework we decide based on. I don't want to arbitrarily decide based on who can sway public opinion.