CONTEXT
-
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.
The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda
And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.
The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.
The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.
The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality
-
I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..
Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.
In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
-
And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.
The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.
The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.
The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva
so go do that
i support your agenda
why must you attack another agenda that is also good?
applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels
*and* work on your agenda
you can do both, because both are good things
positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie
-
Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.
And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.
Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2
For instance, in order for China to produce those incredibly inexpensive, solar panels, they’ve caused enormous tracks of old growth forest in Southeast Asia to be cut down.
Question becomes how many brown people and how much of the world’s ecologies are you happy to obliterate as a sacrifice zone, to keep using as much energy as we do. In order to build this so-called renewable future exponentially more life has to be exterminated.
-
I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..
Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.
In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva good bet the very next proposed strategy is a eugenicist purge of half the world's latitudes
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
And when I am saying is the trade-off between one versus the other, has been the product of greenwashing.
Renewables destroy the planet in their manufacture.
And all you or I or the rest of society is doing is continuing to butcher down the planet while we’re being told we are saving it.
This is not an argument of the perfect being the enemy of the good, this is the argument that the alternative is not what it’s been sold as, and the only real solution is reduction
-
And when I am saying is the trade-off between one versus the other, has been the product of greenwashing.
Renewables destroy the planet in their manufacture.
And all you or I or the rest of society is doing is continuing to butcher down the planet while we’re being told we are saving it.
This is not an argument of the perfect being the enemy of the good, this is the argument that the alternative is not what it’s been sold as, and the only real solution is reduction
@benroyce @blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell just to note, your take's logical conclusion is nihilism. If humanity didn't exist there wouldn't be any footprint. If the universe didn't exist there wouldn't be any problems. but that's just not how it works.
by all means, reuse, reduce, recycle. But it has been widely disproven that e.g electric cars "are not worth it", or that solar panels have a limited lifespan. That's propaganda from the fossil fuel industry that defeats your own point if anything
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva
so go do that
i support your agenda
why must you attack another agenda that is also good?
applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels
*and* work on your agenda
you can do both, because both are good things
positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie
OK, it’s only a lie. If what you’ve been told about renewables is true.. let me emphasize that the companies who were gushing over renewables are the worst polluting most environmentally destructive industries in the world which is the mining sector.
You are going to believe companies that are no different than big oil and no different than big tobacco at face value value.
How well has that traditionally worked out?
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
this is the trap of perfectionism
there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain
you can't
is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
yes
is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?
also yes
but why make enemies of these fine goals
applaud both, push both
don't make them enemies. that is a lie
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
-
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
Take, for example, hydroelectric power. When you damn a river, it becomes a source of methane production… and in the end, if you cost everything out that hydroelectric power is generating twice as much carbon per kilowatt hour is a freaking cold plant.
Again, I emphasize, if you slap a label of green on hydroelectric because it doesn’t burn fossil fuels, but ends up doing more damage what exactly have we gained?
-
And I will add to this comment that I have placed myself in a situation where I do not drive my car except for maybe once a year out of necessity to visit family during Christmas because the alternatives are not available to me now.
The cheapest most efficient world saving effort is to get rid of cars and to be able to feed ourselves from our regional watersheds. The important thing to do is to change to it, not obsess about EV or solar panels.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva Providing one is of reasonable fitness, a simple bicycle gives one a great degree of freedom. My mum lives 3 miles away, and I can get there in 10 minutes.
-
@benroyce @blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell just to note, your take's logical conclusion is nihilism. If humanity didn't exist there wouldn't be any footprint. If the universe didn't exist there wouldn't be any problems. but that's just not how it works.
by all means, reuse, reduce, recycle. But it has been widely disproven that e.g electric cars "are not worth it", or that solar panels have a limited lifespan. That's propaganda from the fossil fuel industry that defeats your own point if anything
Oh right because the mining industry, and the solar panel manufacturing industry is being completely honest with you.
Think about the supply chain necessary to build any piece of technology and understand that the dirtiest most criminal economic sectors are telling you that everything is really green.
Who’s worse big oil or big mining?
-
Take, for example, hydroelectric power. When you damn a river, it becomes a source of methane production… and in the end, if you cost everything out that hydroelectric power is generating twice as much carbon per kilowatt hour is a freaking cold plant.
Again, I emphasize, if you slap a label of green on hydroelectric because it doesn’t burn fossil fuels, but ends up doing more damage what exactly have we gained?
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
You seemed to have taken my point about perfectionism: falsely asserting it as the enemy of good, and completely ignored it
You need to work on this problem of yours
I will go after you further to say that "hydroelectric is as bad (worse?!) as fossil fuels" is a stupid fucking lie
Do you work for fossil fuel companies?
If not, pause and think how you sound
And note the real value of this moronic "perfect is the enemy of good" stupid bullshit you are shilling
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva Providing one is of reasonable fitness, a simple bicycle gives one a great degree of freedom. My mum lives 3 miles away, and I can get there in 10 minutes.
Yup. Ask any Dutch. I am so constructed my life at this point where everything can be had on foot and most anything else that I really need to get out can be had by bus or train.
But I make use of the latter two very rarely. A walkable lifestyle plus availability of locally grown food cuts 90% of all the resources used in the maintenance construction of transport.
I argue the most effective use of money and resources is to make that available to everyone
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
You seemed to have taken my point about perfectionism: falsely asserting it as the enemy of good, and completely ignored it
You need to work on this problem of yours
I will go after you further to say that "hydroelectric is as bad (worse?!) as fossil fuels" is a stupid fucking lie
Do you work for fossil fuel companies?
If not, pause and think how you sound
And note the real value of this moronic "perfect is the enemy of good" stupid bullshit you are shilling
“ According to Ana Simeon, writing for the Watershed Sentinel, “Québec’s largest reservoir, Caniapiscau, has a carbon footprint double that of coal power: about 2,200g CO2-equivalent per kilowatt/hour.” Dams: twice as bad as coal when you calculate total costs?”
-
“Steven Hawley, an author of a book on dams, wrote that, “International studies of dams and their reservoirs confirmed in dozens of peer-reviewed research papers that dams and reservoirs are net contributors to climate change.” This “Green” Transition stuff is lies built on top of lies.”
-
Yup. Ask any Dutch. I am so constructed my life at this point where everything can be had on foot and most anything else that I really need to get out can be had by bus or train.
But I make use of the latter two very rarely. A walkable lifestyle plus availability of locally grown food cuts 90% of all the resources used in the maintenance construction of transport.
I argue the most effective use of money and resources is to make that available to everyone
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva I cycle so much, my body has perfectly fused with the bicycle, forming one superior, harmonious machine. I may add I haven't taken a holiday in over 30 years, haven't owned a car in about that long, I compost all compostables, do not throw away shoes until they fall apart, replace them with charity shop ones, I shower roughly once every 3 days, I recycle all plastic, paper, glass etc.
Of course, one must use resources, but one can be thrifty about it. -
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
You seemed to have taken my point about perfectionism: falsely asserting it as the enemy of good, and completely ignored it
You need to work on this problem of yours
I will go after you further to say that "hydroelectric is as bad (worse?!) as fossil fuels" is a stupid fucking lie
Do you work for fossil fuel companies?
If not, pause and think how you sound
And note the real value of this moronic "perfect is the enemy of good" stupid bullshit you are shilling
@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva I used to work in the oil industry, I know is bad but unfortunately necessary for certain fields. Sustainable and renewable energy is better for other fields though. One of several examples were unfortunately can't be substituted is global logistics. Having all the citizens with EV and keep big ships with containers is not the final solution.
At least reducing a bit of carbon emissions though
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva
You seemed to have taken my point about perfectionism: falsely asserting it as the enemy of good, and completely ignored it
You need to work on this problem of yours
I will go after you further to say that "hydroelectric is as bad (worse?!) as fossil fuels" is a stupid fucking lie
Do you work for fossil fuel companies?
If not, pause and think how you sound
And note the real value of this moronic "perfect is the enemy of good" stupid bullshit you are shilling
I would like to suggest that the ad hominem is out of place.
That reservoir of water produces high amounts of methane which you probably know is 28 times more powerful, a greenhouse gas than CO2. There are many other consequences to damming a river that are destructive to ecological function, and ultimately to the carbon cycle itself.
There is no cheap out and the chief point of damming up water and exporting it to someplace else is to benefit industry
-
Oh right because the mining industry, and the solar panel manufacturing industry is being completely honest with you.
Think about the supply chain necessary to build any piece of technology and understand that the dirtiest most criminal economic sectors are telling you that everything is really green.
Who’s worse big oil or big mining?
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva Think about the supply chain to breathe. Think about the supply chain for 10 billion people to exist.
The logical conclusion to your take is Nihilism.
That's all I'm going to say on this subject because I've talked about this and I've been down that road and I know exactly where it leads.
(not to be mean or condescending, I just had this conversation one too many times it feels like)
