7 ms·

Once you understand that environmentalism is more about punishing people for their lifestyle than helping the environment it will start making more sense.

voxl 5y ago
And here I thought it was about the undeniable climate change that is an existential threat to human existence.
- lovecg 5y ago
  I thought in this context it’s pretty much irrelevant what Western countries do now - the ball is in China’s court. We can all stop driving and flying tomorrow and it won’t make a difference.
- qwytw 5y ago
  I would guess there is not an insignificant overlap between modern environmentalists and the people who have been campaigning against nuclear power since the 1970s and 80s.
  - badpun 5y ago
    Nuclear power is another existential threat. We’ve had plenty of time to switch from fossil fueld since the 70ties with methods which didn’t require nuclear. All that time (half a century!) was mostly wasted however and now even many environmentalist are pro-nuclear as they see that climate disruption is a more immediate threat than nuclear.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Did we? IIRC solar was prohibitively expensive until last decade not sure about other renewables but I'd assume they were significantly less efficient back then. I think it's a bit too late to be pro-nuclear (barring any technological breakthroughs) but had investment into nuclear continued after the Three Mile Island accident at the same rate it did before I'm sure we'd had at least a decade or two head start in decreasing CO2 emissions compared to the current situation.
      - burntoutfire 5y ago
        The obvious solution that was available since the 70ties is the reduction of energy usage...
        qwytw 5y ago
        Or not starting to use fossil fuels in the first place, imagine how great the world be now... In the US per capita CO2 emissions have decreased by around a quarter since 1970, it's similar in Germany and other developed nations (besides France.. there it's only around 50% of what they were back then). This means that emissions mainly grew in developing countries and I'm pretty sure this was tied with the massive increase in quality of living, life expectancy etc, access to healthcare, education etc since the 70s.
        burntoutfire 5y ago
        The West has gone through widespread deindustrialization in the past 50 years, that was the biggest reason for localized decreased emissions (i.e. they were simply moved offshore). It's clearly visible on charts such as this one: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss...
        qwytw 5y ago
        So western countries should have sent their armies to prevent developing countries from building factories and power plants? Refused to trade with them? Given the economic and social incentives at the time (and to a large extend currently) simply reducing energy usage was not really feasible. It's not at all reasonable (and in my opinion largely unethical) to expect people to sacrifice their wellbeing due to some theoretical global threat they hardly knew anything about at the time.
- jollybean 5y ago
  If climate change is an existential threat to the human race, then why have we not been building Nuclear Power plants for the last 20 years whereupon we have enough energy to supply us for 1000 years, carbon-free? Why are the very loud climate change voices not pushing for what is at least a major piece of an obvious solution? The reality is the commentor is correct: Climate Change is a form of populism and it has to be understood from that frame of reference. The actual Science is real of course, however the entire system from academia, the media, public policy (i.e. even green politicians not doing very green things) - including those 'opposing it' are caught up in that populist game. And the same people pushing for climate change - and often against Nuclear - have a whole other set of correlating convictions upon which they are just as religious. So the challenge is to understand the impetus and dynamic of popular trends. 'Nuclear Energy' is a big one because it's something the Green movement is against - but - most regular centre-left (and other) politicians would go for, if there was popular support. Politicians (except maybe Greens) don't talk 'Nuclear' not because they're against it, but because they're afraid of the consequences. Germany is facing an energy crisis which is leading to a military crisis with the empowerment of Russia. The Greens are now a part of government and it's entirely possibly their 'well intervention beliefs' may be severely damaging Germany's prospects. Imagine a Germany without Greens: maybe it would have dozens of Nuclear Power plants well on it's way to being Carbon Free - and - Putin wouldn't have any leverage to force Germany's acquiescence on the Ukraine issue. How's that for a political paradox? It's actually not a paradox when you consider it through a populist lens, it's the sad reality of people not believing in vaccines, thinking that the US election was thrown etc.. Hopefully, these energy prices will force people to take a more pragmatic look. Germans are money-sensitive and rational, this will be an interesting political issue.
wittycardio 5y ago
This is one government with bad policy, do you also make sweeping generalizations about every single ideology, especially ones trying to save the world

voxl 5y ago

And here I thought it was about the undeniable climate change that is an existential threat to human existence.

lovecg 5y ago
I thought in this context it’s pretty much irrelevant what Western countries do now - the ball is in China’s court. We can all stop driving and flying tomorrow and it won’t make a difference.
qwytw 5y ago
I would guess there is not an insignificant overlap between modern environmentalists and the people who have been campaigning against nuclear power since the 1970s and 80s.
- badpun 5y ago
  Nuclear power is another existential threat. We’ve had plenty of time to switch from fossil fueld since the 70ties with methods which didn’t require nuclear. All that time (half a century!) was mostly wasted however and now even many environmentalist are pro-nuclear as they see that climate disruption is a more immediate threat than nuclear.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Did we? IIRC solar was prohibitively expensive until last decade not sure about other renewables but I'd assume they were significantly less efficient back then. I think it's a bit too late to be pro-nuclear (barring any technological breakthroughs) but had investment into nuclear continued after the Three Mile Island accident at the same rate it did before I'm sure we'd had at least a decade or two head start in decreasing CO2 emissions compared to the current situation.
    - burntoutfire 5y ago
      The obvious solution that was available since the 70ties is the reduction of energy usage...
      - qwytw 5y ago
        Or not starting to use fossil fuels in the first place, imagine how great the world be now... In the US per capita CO2 emissions have decreased by around a quarter since 1970, it's similar in Germany and other developed nations (besides France.. there it's only around 50% of what they were back then). This means that emissions mainly grew in developing countries and I'm pretty sure this was tied with the massive increase in quality of living, life expectancy etc, access to healthcare, education etc since the 70s.
        burntoutfire 5y ago
        The West has gone through widespread deindustrialization in the past 50 years, that was the biggest reason for localized decreased emissions (i.e. they were simply moved offshore). It's clearly visible on charts such as this one: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss...
        qwytw 5y ago
        So western countries should have sent their armies to prevent developing countries from building factories and power plants? Refused to trade with them? Given the economic and social incentives at the time (and to a large extend currently) simply reducing energy usage was not really feasible. It's not at all reasonable (and in my opinion largely unethical) to expect people to sacrifice their wellbeing due to some theoretical global threat they hardly knew anything about at the time.
jollybean 5y ago
If climate change is an existential threat to the human race, then why have we not been building Nuclear Power plants for the last 20 years whereupon we have enough energy to supply us for 1000 years, carbon-free? Why are the very loud climate change voices not pushing for what is at least a major piece of an obvious solution? The reality is the commentor is correct: Climate Change is a form of populism and it has to be understood from that frame of reference. The actual Science is real of course, however the entire system from academia, the media, public policy (i.e. even green politicians not doing very green things) - including those 'opposing it' are caught up in that populist game. And the same people pushing for climate change - and often against Nuclear - have a whole other set of correlating convictions upon which they are just as religious. So the challenge is to understand the impetus and dynamic of popular trends. 'Nuclear Energy' is a big one because it's something the Green movement is against - but - most regular centre-left (and other) politicians would go for, if there was popular support. Politicians (except maybe Greens) don't talk 'Nuclear' not because they're against it, but because they're afraid of the consequences. Germany is facing an energy crisis which is leading to a military crisis with the empowerment of Russia. The Greens are now a part of government and it's entirely possibly their 'well intervention beliefs' may be severely damaging Germany's prospects. Imagine a Germany without Greens: maybe it would have dozens of Nuclear Power plants well on it's way to being Carbon Free - and - Putin wouldn't have any leverage to force Germany's acquiescence on the Ukraine issue. How's that for a political paradox? It's actually not a paradox when you consider it through a populist lens, it's the sad reality of people not believing in vaccines, thinking that the US election was thrown etc.. Hopefully, these energy prices will force people to take a more pragmatic look. Germans are money-sensitive and rational, this will be an interesting political issue.

wittycardio 5y ago

This is one government with bad policy, do you also make sweeping generalizations about every single ideology, especially ones trying to save the world