5 ms·

The pro-blackout crowd lol.

by vmchale 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago
Valid climate stance, greenest energy often is not used energy and not having it available is easiest way.
- s0rce 5y ago
  You could just go around committing genocide, that would be similarly green...
- hcurtiss 5y ago
  I see these comments here and there and am always stunned. There's a strong nihilistic streak in the modern environmental movement.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Is that surprising? The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true
    - krrrh 5y ago
      There have been no shortage of failed predictions. In the scientific valence this is totally fine because the wildest predictions are usually stated with low confidence, but the ‘environmental movement’ knows no such moderation.
      - rossjudson 5y ago
        The problem for anti-environmentalists is that the broad predictions about the environment (climate change, warming) have been accurate. Everything else is noise. And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues. When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise. For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.
        krrrh 5y ago
        I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures. People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.
  - ars 5y ago
    In the modern one? It's always been like that, environmentalists tend to be misanthropic, and their primary goal is making people miserable, not the environment. And yes that's a strong claim, but I see so many environmentalists promote things that make zero difference to the environment (straw ban for example), but annoy people. Or things like Italy banning plastic packaging from produce, which makes the environmental worse (much more food waste), but they don't care because it annoys people. Or even the truly dreadful: Being against nuclear power, and being against burning plastic for energy. These two positions actively harm the environment.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      I get most of your point, except the one about "being against burning plastic for energy" - looks to me that simply burying it somewhere would be best for the environment.
      - ars 5y ago
        No - burn it for energy, and then you don't need to pump (and burn) additional oil. It's a one-for-one tradeoff, with the benefit of less trash. It's a 100% win with zero drawbacks (so of course environmentalists are against it). Sure at some point we won't burn oil, and then we can do something different (recycle the plastic), but we are decades away from that, so doing that now is harmful.
        frankish 5y ago
        I do not know much about burning plastic, but is it really zero drawbacks to do so? Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?
        RealityVoid 5y ago
        I think his point hinges on the assumption that the harmful chemicals are no worse than just burning oil/gas. Somehow I doubt this, but I do not know enough to confirm. I mean, is plastic the same as oil? Does it not have _worse_ additives in it?
  - kiryin 5y ago
    I wouldn't use the word nihilism. I'm quite the deep-eco hardliner and in the brightest future I can realisticially dream of, power isn't reliably available to anyone anywhere they wish. Reducing energy consumption is key, not just how it's produced. The least discussed, biggest elephant in the room, holiest of all cows in the environmental discourse are the lifestyle changes required. Everyone's all green, unless it personally impacts my daily life in any perceivable way whatsoever.
    - hcurtiss 5y ago
      I prefer maximizing human prosperity. That is not necessarily contingent on energy consumption, but at least throughout recorded human history there is a very strong correlation. So long as it does not compromise human prosperity, including in terms of our relationship to the natural environment, I have no objection whatsoever to massive quantities of clean energy.

The pro-blackout crowd lol.

Ekaros 5y ago

Valid climate stance, greenest energy often is not used energy and not having it available is easiest way.

s0rce 5y ago
You could just go around committing genocide, that would be similarly green...
hcurtiss 5y ago
I see these comments here and there and am always stunned. There's a strong nihilistic streak in the modern environmental movement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Is that surprising? The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true
  - krrrh 5y ago
    There have been no shortage of failed predictions. In the scientific valence this is totally fine because the wildest predictions are usually stated with low confidence, but the ‘environmental movement’ knows no such moderation.
    - rossjudson 5y ago
      The problem for anti-environmentalists is that the broad predictions about the environment (climate change, warming) have been accurate. Everything else is noise. And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues. When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise. For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.
      - krrrh 5y ago
        I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures. People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.
- ars 5y ago
  In the modern one? It's always been like that, environmentalists tend to be misanthropic, and their primary goal is making people miserable, not the environment. And yes that's a strong claim, but I see so many environmentalists promote things that make zero difference to the environment (straw ban for example), but annoy people. Or things like Italy banning plastic packaging from produce, which makes the environmental worse (much more food waste), but they don't care because it annoys people. Or even the truly dreadful: Being against nuclear power, and being against burning plastic for energy. These two positions actively harm the environment.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    I get most of your point, except the one about "being against burning plastic for energy" - looks to me that simply burying it somewhere would be best for the environment.
    - ars 5y ago
      No - burn it for energy, and then you don't need to pump (and burn) additional oil. It's a one-for-one tradeoff, with the benefit of less trash. It's a 100% win with zero drawbacks (so of course environmentalists are against it). Sure at some point we won't burn oil, and then we can do something different (recycle the plastic), but we are decades away from that, so doing that now is harmful.
      - frankish 5y ago
        I do not know much about burning plastic, but is it really zero drawbacks to do so? Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?
        RealityVoid 5y ago
        I think his point hinges on the assumption that the harmful chemicals are no worse than just burning oil/gas. Somehow I doubt this, but I do not know enough to confirm. I mean, is plastic the same as oil? Does it not have _worse_ additives in it?
- kiryin 5y ago
  I wouldn't use the word nihilism. I'm quite the deep-eco hardliner and in the brightest future I can realisticially dream of, power isn't reliably available to anyone anywhere they wish. Reducing energy consumption is key, not just how it's produced. The least discussed, biggest elephant in the room, holiest of all cows in the environmental discourse are the lifestyle changes required. Everyone's all green, unless it personally impacts my daily life in any perceivable way whatsoever.
  - hcurtiss 5y ago
    I prefer maximizing human prosperity. That is not necessarily contingent on energy consumption, but at least throughout recorded human history there is a very strong correlation. So long as it does not compromise human prosperity, including in terms of our relationship to the natural environment, I have no objection whatsoever to massive quantities of clean energy.