4 ms·

This is the sort of extremist attitude that alienates the general population from all environmental measures. Like banning plastic straws while the cups are st

by mihaic 4y ago

This is the sort of extremist attitude that alienates the general population from all environmental measures. Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill. I agree we need to treat this seriously and invest a lot of time and effort, but if we don't address first the biggest issues (factories, automobiles), why force me to recycle the exhaust from my cigarette lighter?

feet 4y ago
>Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill. This is a false equivalency when compared with the top comment. The equivalent statement would be "only car exhausts must be captured but we don't care about the rest of the gasses." The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards. Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses. As a side note, cigarette smoke is also considered exhausting waste to the atmosphere.
- sirmike_ 4y ago
  > The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards. > Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses. Yet we do not live in that world and it is in fact not a goal to achieve. It's over the top and nonsensical. Like the commentor stated above you its extremist views like this one which will make the common folks squash any movement towards "green new deals." Just watch what happens when the climate nuts like Extinction Rebellion try to interfere in the normal people's day. They ER types get crushed because real people do not have time or money for horseshit. Climate change will merely be adapted too. But not in the expensive fart counting way some in this thread suggest. Humanity will continue to expand and use technology to solve our biggest problems. The world is in fact not ending. It is changing just as it always has. Humanity will do the same.
  - feet 4y ago
    What sort of temperatures do you think humans can survive in? We are living organisms after all
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic. I don't think there is a single person upset at the plastic straw ban because they didn't ban even more single use plastic. I'm not even sure that's logically possible, because that's not being upset at the straws being banned, it's being upset at the other things not being banned.
- mihaic 4y ago
  I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can see an actual improvement in something. A restriction is fair for instance if it draws a cost/benefit line, and just bans all things on the wrong side of that line. Even if I don't agree, the conversation is at least around where to draw the line, and not on absurdities. Banning plastic straws without banning plastic cups is mostly useless and inconvenient.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    But it wouldn't be inconvenient if they banned more stuff? Talk me through your thinking here, because it's not obvious to me and seems like a very poor post-hoc rationalization.
    - mihaic 4y ago
      It would be more inconvenient, but at the same time it would feel more self-consistent. It you'd want to limit alcohol consumption (just an example), you don't want to ban tequila but allow gin for instance. You can say ban anything with more than 15% alcohol by volume -- that would feel harsh but more fair. I'm really not rationalizing, for me and some others there needs to be a perceived fairness in the restrictions.

by mihaic 4y ago

feet 4y ago

>Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic, it enrages even many with a moderate amount of goodwill. This is a false equivalency when compared with the top comment. The equivalent statement would be "only car exhausts must be captured but we don't care about the rest of the gasses." The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards. Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses. As a side note, cigarette smoke is also considered exhausting waste to the atmosphere.

sirmike_ 4y ago
> The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards. > Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses. Yet we do not live in that world and it is in fact not a goal to achieve. It's over the top and nonsensical. Like the commentor stated above you its extremist views like this one which will make the common folks squash any movement towards "green new deals." Just watch what happens when the climate nuts like Extinction Rebellion try to interfere in the normal people's day. They ER types get crushed because real people do not have time or money for horseshit. Climate change will merely be adapted too. But not in the expensive fart counting way some in this thread suggest. Humanity will continue to expand and use technology to solve our biggest problems. The world is in fact not ending. It is changing just as it always has. Humanity will do the same.
- feet 4y ago
  What sort of temperatures do you think humans can survive in? We are living organisms after all

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Like banning plastic straws while the cups are still plastic. I don't think there is a single person upset at the plastic straw ban because they didn't ban even more single use plastic. I'm not even sure that's logically possible, because that's not being upset at the straws being banned, it's being upset at the other things not being banned.

mihaic 4y ago
I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can see an actual improvement in something. A restriction is fair for instance if it draws a cost/benefit line, and just bans all things on the wrong side of that line. Even if I don't agree, the conversation is at least around where to draw the line, and not on absurdities. Banning plastic straws without banning plastic cups is mostly useless and inconvenient.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  But it wouldn't be inconvenient if they banned more stuff? Talk me through your thinking here, because it's not obvious to me and seems like a very poor post-hoc rationalization.
  - mihaic 4y ago
    It would be more inconvenient, but at the same time it would feel more self-consistent. It you'd want to limit alcohol consumption (just an example), you don't want to ban tequila but allow gin for instance. You can say ban anything with more than 15% alcohol by volume -- that would feel harsh but more fair. I'm really not rationalizing, for me and some others there needs to be a perceived fairness in the restrictions.