4 ms·

This isn’t really relevant though, is it? I don’t think anyone claims that infrastructure doesn’t have costs. Of course it does. But the argument is that the b

This isn’t really relevant though, is it? I don’t think anyone claims that infrastructure doesn’t have costs. Of course it does. But the argument is that the benefits are worth the cost. Brining up a gas pipeline explosion as relevant to a discussion about stoves isn’t useful unless you quantify what portion of that pipeline went toward cooking. The argument that all gas should be eliminated because 8 people died in 2010 is too simple.

fragmede 3y ago
People don't want to die is too simple?
- klabb3 3y ago
  I’m not a gas-proponent in any shape or form but this is at the very least an insufficient response. All forms of energy and infrastructure have accidents - a cost in blood. You could argue that gas has a higher total cost of life than other energy forms, perhaps. But it’s not like installing rooftop solar, maintaining windmills or dams are free from accidents. The safest energy in terms of deaths per Wh is fission IIRC. If you’re sitting on statistics that belongs to this discussion, please share it.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    I'm responding to the notion that it's strange that people might not want to die. I don't have stats on the number of people that don't, apologies, I hate coming from a place where I have don't have data to support my views, but still, I imagine it's common enough not to be considered strange.
- prepend 3y ago
  I mean the significance. People die with all infrastructure projects. Any loss of life is sad. But 8 lives is important depending on the value from their loss. If it’s 8 lives in 100 years to allow 300 million people to have gas then that may be acceptable. Just like the loss of life from building hydro dams and solar arrays and whatnot. The simplicity isn’t in the loss of life, it’s in not performing the analysis to know if it’s meaningful or not. I suspect it’s not meaningful.
FireInsight 3y ago
Well, houses with gas stoves rely on gas. Households relying on gas likely make it less likely that other uses of gas are more accepted regardless of negative consequences.

fragmede 3y ago

People don't want to die is too simple?

klabb3 3y ago
I’m not a gas-proponent in any shape or form but this is at the very least an insufficient response. All forms of energy and infrastructure have accidents - a cost in blood. You could argue that gas has a higher total cost of life than other energy forms, perhaps. But it’s not like installing rooftop solar, maintaining windmills or dams are free from accidents. The safest energy in terms of deaths per Wh is fission IIRC. If you’re sitting on statistics that belongs to this discussion, please share it.
- fragmede 3y ago
  I'm responding to the notion that it's strange that people might not want to die. I don't have stats on the number of people that don't, apologies, I hate coming from a place where I have don't have data to support my views, but still, I imagine it's common enough not to be considered strange.
prepend 3y ago
I mean the significance. People die with all infrastructure projects. Any loss of life is sad. But 8 lives is important depending on the value from their loss. If it’s 8 lives in 100 years to allow 300 million people to have gas then that may be acceptable. Just like the loss of life from building hydro dams and solar arrays and whatnot. The simplicity isn’t in the loss of life, it’s in not performing the analysis to know if it’s meaningful or not. I suspect it’s not meaningful.

FireInsight 3y ago

Well, houses with gas stoves rely on gas. Households relying on gas likely make it less likely that other uses of gas are more accepted regardless of negative consequences.