6 ms·

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the arguments highlighted in the article are rather unconvincing, but messing up with ecosystems ALWAYS trigger

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the arguments highlighted in the article are rather unconvincing, but messing up with ecosystems ALWAYS triggers unintended consequences. Some might be good, others terrible. I wouldn't be as definitive about the "good" in it as you make it sound.

ajross 4y ago
To be fair, all industry is "messing with ecosystems", and in particular the energy industry is doing so with far more per-kWh impact, and globally. This is very much like the "birds vs. windmills" arguments. Yes, it's important to recognize externalities to any decision and have a plan for mitigation where needed. But at this scale, "look-here-is-a-problem" tunnel vision just creates paralysis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yamazakiwi 4y ago
There is a scale to influencing change in the environment. Any amount of change is not "messing up" with ecosystems, as you put it. Unintended consequences are possible/likely/imminent, but that doesn't mean they are always unexpected/uncontrollable/cataclysmic.
- mohamedattahri 4y ago
  I disagree, because I think the scale is relative to the size and complexity of the ecosystem you're touching, not the size of your influence. They're unpredictable and unexpected, and that's why we tend to refer to them as unknown unknowns. But like you said, they're not necessarily catastrophic or cataclysmic. Back to the context, I just don't think someone can say for sure that changing the very nature of a thousand square miles piece of land in the middle of some of the least studied terrain types will be great and won't have any bad consequences.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    This is valid, but have to use some sort of heuristic or things will continue to get worse as we struggle to assign probabilities to the manifold possibilities.
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    I didn't say that the scale wasn't relative to the size or complexity. I'm saying that any amount of change in an ecosystem isn't necessarily "bad". Contextually, I can see why you're a skeptic of this amount of land changing having an undeniable "good" influence, but the size could absolutely not be a factor at all. I'll use your words but change the last part to illustrate better what I'm saying: "I just don't think someone can say for sure that changing the very nature of a thousand square miles piece of land in the middle of some of the least studied terrain types will be good because...It sounds right and I'll choose that answer even though I don't actually know." Also saying "changing the very nature of" is quite dramatic.
WithinReason 4y ago
Sure, but will the unintended consequences be worse than not importing 8% of UK energy from North Africa? Because that will have consequences too.
- coldtea 4y ago
  How about cutting down UK energy consumption by 20-30%?
  - johngalt_ 4y ago
    How could that be done?
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      Lots of comments on hackernews/reddit appears to be the go-to method thus far.
    - grey-area 4y ago
      Insulating houses and offices (windows, roofs, walls). Imposing more stringent insulation and energy requirements on new builds. The UK housing stock is very badly insulated.
      - ArchitectAnon 4y ago
        Yes, insulate as well. But a person living in a single glazed warehouse conversion with no insulation but next to a tube stop and a food shop will use quite a bit less energy overall than a person who lives in a passive house but has to drive 10miles to work. Restoring walkable town centres and discouraging car use in towns and cities that worked fine before cars would save more energy and would be quicker and less disruptive than trying to insulate every old victorian house. Insulating old houses is technically hard to do right and different houses need different solutions. If it’s done badly it will cause health problems from black mould and structural problems from condensation causing timber joists and rafters to rot where they pass through the insulation into the masonry walls.

ajross 4y ago

To be fair, all industry is "messing with ecosystems", and in particular the energy industry is doing so with far more per-kWh impact, and globally. This is very much like the "birds vs. windmills" arguments. Yes, it's important to recognize externalities to any decision and have a plan for mitigation where needed. But at this scale, "look-here-is-a-problem" tunnel vision just creates paralysis.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yamazakiwi 4y ago

There is a scale to influencing change in the environment. Any amount of change is not "messing up" with ecosystems, as you put it. Unintended consequences are possible/likely/imminent, but that doesn't mean they are always unexpected/uncontrollable/cataclysmic.

mohamedattahri 4y ago
I disagree, because I think the scale is relative to the size and complexity of the ecosystem you're touching, not the size of your influence. They're unpredictable and unexpected, and that's why we tend to refer to them as unknown unknowns. But like you said, they're not necessarily catastrophic or cataclysmic. Back to the context, I just don't think someone can say for sure that changing the very nature of a thousand square miles piece of land in the middle of some of the least studied terrain types will be great and won't have any bad consequences.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  This is valid, but have to use some sort of heuristic or things will continue to get worse as we struggle to assign probabilities to the manifold possibilities.
- yamazakiwi 4y ago
  I didn't say that the scale wasn't relative to the size or complexity. I'm saying that any amount of change in an ecosystem isn't necessarily "bad". Contextually, I can see why you're a skeptic of this amount of land changing having an undeniable "good" influence, but the size could absolutely not be a factor at all. I'll use your words but change the last part to illustrate better what I'm saying: "I just don't think someone can say for sure that changing the very nature of a thousand square miles piece of land in the middle of some of the least studied terrain types will be good because...It sounds right and I'll choose that answer even though I don't actually know." Also saying "changing the very nature of" is quite dramatic.

WithinReason 4y ago

Sure, but will the unintended consequences be worse than not importing 8% of UK energy from North Africa? Because that will have consequences too.

coldtea 4y ago
How about cutting down UK energy consumption by 20-30%?
- johngalt_ 4y ago
  How could that be done?
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    Lots of comments on hackernews/reddit appears to be the go-to method thus far.
  - grey-area 4y ago
    Insulating houses and offices (windows, roofs, walls). Imposing more stringent insulation and energy requirements on new builds. The UK housing stock is very badly insulated.
    - ArchitectAnon 4y ago
      Yes, insulate as well. But a person living in a single glazed warehouse conversion with no insulation but next to a tube stop and a food shop will use quite a bit less energy overall than a person who lives in a passive house but has to drive 10miles to work. Restoring walkable town centres and discouraging car use in towns and cities that worked fine before cars would save more energy and would be quicker and less disruptive than trying to insulate every old victorian house. Insulating old houses is technically hard to do right and different houses need different solutions. If it’s done badly it will cause health problems from black mould and structural problems from condensation causing timber joists and rafters to rot where they pass through the insulation into the masonry walls.