4 ms·
It’s a convenient distraction for people in industries that depend on externalized costs, and it indulges those prone to self-righteousness and judgment (e.g.,
by throwaway894345 4y ago
It’s a convenient distraction for people in industries that depend on externalized costs, and it indulges those prone to self-righteousness and judgment (e.g., people who moralize their transportation and diet). Heavy industry and pseudo-environmentalists are unusual bedfellows.
I distinctly remember when Teslas became popular, the reaction from environmental types was often frustration because apparently environmentalism is supposed to be about sacrifice and yet Tesla is allowing the unwashed masses to help save the planet. Similarly, when debating climate policy, some of the strongest opposition to carbon pricing would come from self-professed environmentalists who were repulsed by the idea of aligned incentives—environmentalism is a
bout rejecting one’s own interests; if the cheap thing and the environmental thing are the same, how will the True Believer distinguish himself from the unwashed masses? There is a deep attachment to pennywise and pound foolish “personal responsibility” solutions.
- bbzealot 4y ago> I distinctly remember when Teslas became popular, the reaction from environmental types was often frustration because apparently environmentalism is supposed to be about sacrifice and yet Tesla is allowing the unwashed masses to help save the planet. Honesty this is hard to believe, do you have any source/example to back it up?
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYeah, I'm thinking that such people, if they exist at all, are heavily outnumbered by the people saying * Not actually physically possible * Its just coal powered * It's worse for the environment because batteries die after 3 years * Rare earths!! * Subsidized foolishness * Toys for rich people * Communism And weirdly those people all get paid to write op-eds in right wing tabloids.
- tekknik 4y agoWhat are you even saying here? > And weirdly those people all get paid to write op-eds in right wing tabloids. Oh, spreading hate. Got it.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYes, let's pretend that there wasn't an organised campaign to discredit EVs, even though basic science made it clear they would be superior, even if you ignored climate change. And why would you ignore climate change? Possibly because of the organised campaign to discredit the idea even though basic science made it clear it was a problem. But now, they'll deny that crime against humanity even happened. "No one actually denied climate change they were just worried about government overreach" while demial is still being done by the same people. It was all published in newspapers, we have it on record. We have academic studies of how many times certain newspapers admitted that climate change was caused by humans in their op-eds. We have databases that track their lies over decades: https://www.partnershipforresponsiblegrowth.org/research-1/climatenexusdatabase https://www.partnershipforresponsiblegrowth.org/research-1/c... But no, now the people who let themselves be convinced by those lies bizarrely blame "Greens" or "environmentalists" for complaiming that EVs were too easy. Which despite being obvious lies doesn't seem to be considered "hate", but pointing out the well documented truth is?