3 ms·
The specific comment aside: I would judge your characterization as categorically overly generous, and that such benefit of the doubt is problematic from a polic
by thereisnospork 3y ago
The specific comment aside: I would judge your characterization as categorically overly generous, and that such benefit of the doubt is problematic from a policy perspective. "Think of the environment" is a convinent argument that can align with whatever aims you'd like and casual acceptance of these arguments gives them undeserved weight. Anything[0] can be construed as environmentally damaging or worthy of study (read: delay).
[0] Hydropower, solar power, and building housing for instance.
- trimethylpurine 3y agoI'm not sure you responded to the right comment, as mine was just clarifying that the previous comment didn't make any of the points that the next comment rebutted. Similar to this one. But I'll agree that anything can be considered damaging. Only in so much as it can also be considered environmentally friendly even when it's actually damaging. Cigarettes used to be good for you. The marketing arms of large corporations funded much research that supported that claim. What warrants delay is situationally dependent. We shouldn't make blanket statements about delays. Especially as pertains to policy.