3 ms·

> Generating CO2 should be as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. Since essentially every activity generates CO2, what you are essentially saying is that li

> Generating CO2 should be as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. Since essentially every activity generates CO2, what you are essentially saying is that life should be made as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. And this certainly feels like the approach many eco-activists are taking, triggering well-deserved backlash. The Green party in Germany, for example, does extremely sensible politics in most areas, but mixes it with performative policies that are more about visibility (through causing inconvenience) than actually meaningful impact. So every time your drink tastes like cardboard as your straw is dissolving, you're reminded to vote for anything else. And "anything else" will most likely not enact the policies that might actually make sense (e.g. stricter carbon taxation).

acdha 2y ago
“Generating” is definitely the wrong term: burning fossil fuels puts sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere so we’d want to distinguish that from recirculating carbon as you would by, say, riding a bicycle where all of the carbon was recirculated. I completely agree with your second point: the low-benefit performative stunts are so foolish that you’d be forgiven for thinking they were the work of undercover saboteurs.
aziaziazi 2y ago
I 100% agree with your second point. > life should be made as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. I have a hard time seeing good faith here but let say you really didn’t got it: What he is saying is that CO2-problematic activities should be made more awkward and unconfortable than those that don’t. A cousin view would be to make substainable options easier and cheaper that others. You know like various incentives measures used everywhere in the economy to serve other goals we set earlier, like keep some domestic agriculture or tax more the cigarettes.

acdha 2y ago

“Generating” is definitely the wrong term: burning fossil fuels puts sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere so we’d want to distinguish that from recirculating carbon as you would by, say, riding a bicycle where all of the carbon was recirculated. I completely agree with your second point: the low-benefit performative stunts are so foolish that you’d be forgiven for thinking they were the work of undercover saboteurs.

aziaziazi 2y ago

I 100% agree with your second point. > life should be made as awkward and uncomfortable as possible. I have a hard time seeing good faith here but let say you really didn’t got it: What he is saying is that CO2-problematic activities should be made more awkward and unconfortable than those that don’t. A cousin view would be to make substainable options easier and cheaper that others. You know like various incentives measures used everywhere in the economy to serve other goals we set earlier, like keep some domestic agriculture or tax more the cigarettes.