3 ms·

I don’t see any scenario where this is worse than the status quo in the narrative put forth by grandparent comment. Is the implication here that the end result

I don’t see any scenario where this is worse than the status quo in the narrative put forth by grandparent comment. Is the implication here that the end result of the efforts mentioned is somehow more greenhouse gas emissions? If so, I would love to hear more of the rationale and statistics behind it. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the decent (not even good, but way better than the shit world we live in now)

andromeduck 4y ago
Germany.
prepend 4y ago
The scenario where it is worse is that it results in less overall improvement because now we are paying for show projects brought on by lobbyists rather than valid investment in useful projects. If we don’t have evidence based evaluation and selection and rather lobbyist based selection then we will not make sound investments and this can harm the environment. Ie spending $100B on bullshit rather than effective clean energy or whatnot. I was working on an island in Uganda and we drove past a solar energy array. Me and the other foreigners were like “oh cool, that’s really nice” and the local collaborators we were with explained that it was the result of $100M in foreign funding and would have cost about $500k if it used local firms. And that it displaced a local firm that was trying to do solar stuff. Instead they flew in people from outside the country and continent even to install and perform routine maintenance. The local collaborator said it produces the electricity of a small diesel generator. This is just an anecdote and I was never able to check the numbers, but it’s an example of how we can do harm by trying to do good. Bullshit projects and funding can harm good projects. So please let horrible be the enemy of minimally effective. And don’t pretend that horrible is good and minimally effective is perfect.

andromeduck 4y ago

Germany.

prepend 4y ago

The scenario where it is worse is that it results in less overall improvement because now we are paying for show projects brought on by lobbyists rather than valid investment in useful projects. If we don’t have evidence based evaluation and selection and rather lobbyist based selection then we will not make sound investments and this can harm the environment. Ie spending $100B on bullshit rather than effective clean energy or whatnot. I was working on an island in Uganda and we drove past a solar energy array. Me and the other foreigners were like “oh cool, that’s really nice” and the local collaborators we were with explained that it was the result of $100M in foreign funding and would have cost about $500k if it used local firms. And that it displaced a local firm that was trying to do solar stuff. Instead they flew in people from outside the country and continent even to install and perform routine maintenance. The local collaborator said it produces the electricity of a small diesel generator. This is just an anecdote and I was never able to check the numbers, but it’s an example of how we can do harm by trying to do good. Bullshit projects and funding can harm good projects. So please let horrible be the enemy of minimally effective. And don’t pretend that horrible is good and minimally effective is perfect.