4 ms·

It makes sense for the same reason that advertizing at the olympics makes sense: It's a global event that a lot of people pay attention to. You can use it to ma

It makes sense for the same reason that advertizing at the olympics makes sense: It's a global event that a lot of people pay attention to. You can use it to make the topic that everything has to reduce CO2 emissions stay at the front of people's minds. Depending on which bubble one is in, that's not always a given. I do agree though, it does seem to have significant overlap with the idea that replacing plastic straws will save the ... something (?) ...

SllX 5y ago
Movements that depend on being at the forefront of peoples’ minds are precisely what people don’t want. Human activity of every kind is going to have environmental impacts of some variety, and part of that impact will increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. Given that there are now more people alive today than at any other point in history, seriously, every single day we’re breaking that record, human activity will remain high, and so will our environmental impact projected out into the future. When there are more deaths than births on a consistent basis, environmental measurements will be lagging indicators of a decrease in human activity. That does not mean we have to depend on combustible hydrocarbons in order to continue or advance our industry, if the concern is actually carbon dioxide, but we are almost entirely unwilling to build the one kind of power plant that would short circuit our carbon dioxide output in the shortest amount of time: nuclear plants. Instead we spend our time and waste our energy arguing about consumer uses of energy rather than how we can produce more or the same amount of energy with less carbon dioxide output because at the end of the day it always comes down to: how can we control our neighbors and make them live down to or below our standards?

4 ms·

It makes sense for the same reason that advertizing at the olympics makes sense: It's a global event that a lot of people pay attention to. You can use it to ma

by yosamino 5y ago

SllX 5y ago
Movements that depend on being at the forefront of peoples’ minds are precisely what people don’t want. Human activity of every kind is going to have environmental impacts of some variety, and part of that impact will increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. Given that there are now more people alive today than at any other point in history, seriously, every single day we’re breaking that record, human activity will remain high, and so will our environmental impact projected out into the future. When there are more deaths than births on a consistent basis, environmental measurements will be lagging indicators of a decrease in human activity. That does not mean we have to depend on combustible hydrocarbons in order to continue or advance our industry, if the concern is actually carbon dioxide, but we are almost entirely unwilling to build the one kind of power plant that would short circuit our carbon dioxide output in the shortest amount of time: nuclear plants. Instead we spend our time and waste our energy arguing about consumer uses of energy rather than how we can produce more or the same amount of energy with less carbon dioxide output because at the end of the day it always comes down to: how can we control our neighbors and make them live down to or below our standards?