3 ms·
The fallacy is that they are "necessary" when they are entirely elective and a conscious or unconscious choice. There's always a choice that doesn't involve a H
by sacnoradhq 3y ago
The fallacy is that they are "necessary" when they are entirely elective and a conscious or unconscious choice. There's always a choice that doesn't involve a Hobson's choice.
- cornholio 3y agoThe fallacy here is that choices of end users to use liquid fuel for transportation have not changed, and the entire scheme is predicated on regulatory incentives, that trade the local impact of refineries for the substantial ecological and social impact of biofuels.