4 ms·

Defeatism at its worst. What better way to not have to fix a problem than to choose to be unaware of it? The articles that make you uncomfortable first inform

Defeatism at its worst. What better way to not have to fix a problem than to choose to be unaware of it? The articles that make you uncomfortable first inform you. Then you think. Then you make personal choices to reduce pollution, pick sustainable ways of living and transportation etc. You talk to your relatives and friends about it to spread awareness. If you live in a democracy, effect policy change through your representatives. Etc etc.

jacooper 4y ago
There is no way any individual action will affect climate change. Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Taking the subway or not flying often or not eating mear won't change much if anything at all, its just virtue signaling. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestures-trivialize-the-very-serious-challenge-of-climate-change/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestur...
- peterfirefly 4y ago
  > Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Absolutely. Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy, if we are talking lots and lots of energy.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    Advocacy for nuclear power would have made sense back in the '80s and '90s, but it's too late now; renewables cost half as much and come on line ten times faster. The ROI just isn't there for nuclear.
    - peterfirefly 4y ago
      Wind/solar are always wind/solar + something else. That something else is usually pipelined gas.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        That's true, but I am talking about the economic problem: who is going to spend $30 billion on a decade-long project to build a nuclear plant, when the same money could buy twice as many megawatts' worth of renewables and start returning on the investment in a year? Of course it would be a good thing for us all if someone would replace all those gas plants with nuclear, but it's hard to see why anyone who had the money to do that would choose to spend it that way.
        peterfirefly 4y ago
        If our safety requirements for wind and solar were as onerous as they are for nuclear power, then the economic equation would be completely flipped around. (Plus we currently don't have the wind/solar providers pay for the gas plants -- and the costs of ensuring a constant supply of gas. That cost is currently measured in leopard tanks and stinger missiles... and in Ukrainian soldiers but that's an externality we are not paying for.) How do we change that? Advocate for nuclear power. Tell every nasty little "green" politician that we hate them and their lies.
    - nonplus 4y ago
      I don't really want to debate this. I think you chose your wording advocacy instead of just nuclear for a reason. I would just add every environment is not equally suited to each type of power generation. Each environment needs a different peak load. Batteries can get you through a single peak when sized well, at large expense. We don't want natural gas to be the fallback for renewables universally.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    No it doesn’t. Shut down the oil and gas, and let the utilities figure out the cheapest way to get us energy. Choosing which technology to use is their expertise.
    - peterfirefly 4y ago
      Do they currently have the freedom to do that? Not in my country. The anti-nuclear lobby won that battle decades ago... and there is huge government interference in our energy infrastructure.
  - babelthuap 4y ago
    The Paris Climate Agreements never addresses nuclear in France which last time I checked was around 70% of their energy. Obviously something is very backwards with the setting of these agreements. Everyone knows nuclear is our best option right now except advocates for wind and solar since they lose money. It should be the Paris Nuclear Agreements end of the day...meh.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    100%
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Reread. It starts with making individual choices, goes to informing others and effecting policy change. Reading uncomfortable articles is prerequisite for this process to even start. For an example where individual choices eventually cascaded into big changes to human environment see anthropocene.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Even if your whole family switched, it won't matter.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      False. It's my family and friends and whoever they in turn talk to about it, and their friends and family. And all of them can also do their part in effecting policy change. So much misinformation on this topic. It's more comfortable to be complacent.

jacooper 4y ago

There is no way any individual action will affect climate change. Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Taking the subway or not flying often or not eating mear won't change much if anything at all, its just virtue signaling. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestures-trivialize-the-very-serious-challenge-of-climate-change/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestur...

peterfirefly 4y ago
> Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Absolutely. Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy, if we are talking lots and lots of energy.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Advocacy for nuclear power would have made sense back in the '80s and '90s, but it's too late now; renewables cost half as much and come on line ten times faster. The ROI just isn't there for nuclear.
  - peterfirefly 4y ago
    Wind/solar are always wind/solar + something else. That something else is usually pipelined gas.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      That's true, but I am talking about the economic problem: who is going to spend $30 billion on a decade-long project to build a nuclear plant, when the same money could buy twice as many megawatts' worth of renewables and start returning on the investment in a year? Of course it would be a good thing for us all if someone would replace all those gas plants with nuclear, but it's hard to see why anyone who had the money to do that would choose to spend it that way.
      - peterfirefly 4y ago
        If our safety requirements for wind and solar were as onerous as they are for nuclear power, then the economic equation would be completely flipped around. (Plus we currently don't have the wind/solar providers pay for the gas plants -- and the costs of ensuring a constant supply of gas. That cost is currently measured in leopard tanks and stinger missiles... and in Ukrainian soldiers but that's an externality we are not paying for.) How do we change that? Advocate for nuclear power. Tell every nasty little "green" politician that we hate them and their lies.
  - nonplus 4y ago
    I don't really want to debate this. I think you chose your wording advocacy instead of just nuclear for a reason. I would just add every environment is not equally suited to each type of power generation. Each environment needs a different peak load. Batteries can get you through a single peak when sized well, at large expense. We don't want natural gas to be the fallback for renewables universally.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  No it doesn’t. Shut down the oil and gas, and let the utilities figure out the cheapest way to get us energy. Choosing which technology to use is their expertise.
  - peterfirefly 4y ago
    Do they currently have the freedom to do that? Not in my country. The anti-nuclear lobby won that battle decades ago... and there is huge government interference in our energy infrastructure.
- babelthuap 4y ago
  The Paris Climate Agreements never addresses nuclear in France which last time I checked was around 70% of their energy. Obviously something is very backwards with the setting of these agreements. Everyone knows nuclear is our best option right now except advocates for wind and solar since they lose money. It should be the Paris Nuclear Agreements end of the day...meh.
- jacooper 4y ago
  100%
throwaway290 4y ago
Reread. It starts with making individual choices, goes to informing others and effecting policy change. Reading uncomfortable articles is prerequisite for this process to even start. For an example where individual choices eventually cascaded into big changes to human environment see anthropocene.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Even if your whole family switched, it won't matter.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    False. It's my family and friends and whoever they in turn talk to about it, and their friends and family. And all of them can also do their part in effecting policy change. So much misinformation on this topic. It's more comfortable to be complacent.