2 ms·

As someone in Germany but not German, this aspect of Germany is bizarre to me. You have green energy already and instead of maintaining it or building it out, y

by lucb1e 4y ago

As someone in Germany but not German, this aspect of Germany is bizarre to me. You have green energy already and instead of maintaining it or building it out, you build extra coal plants, mine more villages, but shut the green energy down? Huh, interesting choice. I understand the principles behind closing it. The old reactors are not the latest and greatest, there is this fear similar to the fear of flying (you're not in control and it has large consequences) even though it's the safest thing to do, and of course it's not technically renewable. What baffles me is that people don't see that this is still better than the alternative coal and gas plants that kill people on an ongoing basis from air pollution and global warming. But you also have higher Linux, PGP, Threema, OpenStreetMap, etc. usages than any other country I know of. The "only the purest ideal is good enough, shut everything else down" mentality has its upsides in many (most?) situations.

bsaul 4y ago
Wait, global warming is already killing people ?? Weather-related events has killed people since the beginning of times, but I was under the impression global warming was still about predictions of catastrophies.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  The "air pollution" part is measurable enough but it's obviously impossible to attribute the death of any individual that was caused by, say, a natural disaster or extreme heat event bolstered by global warming to any particular source of carbon emissions. Especially because you can very reasonably argue that those carbon emissions were a by-product of providing the energy needed to maintain first world standards of living, including the medical care etc that comes with it (I would totally agree that if we shut down all fossil-fuel- based energy generation tomorrow, it would result in significant excess deaths - far more than would be saved. Of course if you extend the period over which you count such deaths - say, to the next 50 or 100 years - the reverse is likely to be true, especially considering how much the earth's population is likely to increase in the next couple of decades).
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  No, global warming is not about prediction. A consequence of a higher global temperature is that the frequency of natural disasters will increase and their severity will ne amplified, but that's not the same as predicting anything. An argument can be made that it's already killing people, as both frequency and severely of fires, heat waves, draughts, floods, etc has significantly gotten worse within the last 20 years. That doesn't mean that all deaths to natural disasters can be attributed to global warming for obvious reasons, but logic dictates that by increasing the severity of the event, at least some of the harm can be attributed to climate change. Singling anyone out is gonna be impossible however. For the record: the increased frequency and magnitude of disasters is a pretty tame side effect of global warming. There are much bigger long time issues for farming, biodiversity and toxicity in water. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-cli...
guitarbill 4y ago
> The "only the purest ideal is good enough, shut everything else down" mentality has its upsides in many (most?) situations. Unfortunately, I have come to see this differently. For example Threema. It turns out it wasn't a great choice, at least from the cryptographic side. Maybe it's still a good choice from a data protection standpoint. Or the high Android usage. Is buying e.g. Huawei phones really a good idea? Even if we could say there is a way to go from ideal to the practical "best", so much time is wasted in endless debates about the "best". This only works for issues where time isn't of the essence. Sometimes, pragmatism is required.

by lucb1e 4y ago

bsaul 4y ago

Wait, global warming is already killing people ?? Weather-related events has killed people since the beginning of times, but I was under the impression global warming was still about predictions of catastrophies.

wizofaus 4y ago
The "air pollution" part is measurable enough but it's obviously impossible to attribute the death of any individual that was caused by, say, a natural disaster or extreme heat event bolstered by global warming to any particular source of carbon emissions. Especially because you can very reasonably argue that those carbon emissions were a by-product of providing the energy needed to maintain first world standards of living, including the medical care etc that comes with it (I would totally agree that if we shut down all fossil-fuel- based energy generation tomorrow, it would result in significant excess deaths - far more than would be saved. Of course if you extend the period over which you count such deaths - say, to the next 50 or 100 years - the reverse is likely to be true, especially considering how much the earth's population is likely to increase in the next couple of decades).
411111111111111 4y ago
No, global warming is not about prediction. A consequence of a higher global temperature is that the frequency of natural disasters will increase and their severity will ne amplified, but that's not the same as predicting anything. An argument can be made that it's already killing people, as both frequency and severely of fires, heat waves, draughts, floods, etc has significantly gotten worse within the last 20 years. That doesn't mean that all deaths to natural disasters can be attributed to global warming for obvious reasons, but logic dictates that by increasing the severity of the event, at least some of the harm can be attributed to climate change. Singling anyone out is gonna be impossible however. For the record: the increased frequency and magnitude of disasters is a pretty tame side effect of global warming. There are much bigger long time issues for farming, biodiversity and toxicity in water. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-cli...

guitarbill 4y ago

> The "only the purest ideal is good enough, shut everything else down" mentality has its upsides in many (most?) situations. Unfortunately, I have come to see this differently. For example Threema. It turns out it wasn't a great choice, at least from the cryptographic side. Maybe it's still a good choice from a data protection standpoint. Or the high Android usage. Is buying e.g. Huawei phones really a good idea? Even if we could say there is a way to go from ideal to the practical "best", so much time is wasted in endless debates about the "best". This only works for issues where time isn't of the essence. Sometimes, pragmatism is required.