You're missing my point: yes, they have benefited from the whole thing, no doubt there.
But a responsible leader at the very least tries to address the fact that his proposal will throw a major chunk of the ecosystem under the bus and what's worse, on a completely unplanned timeline.
Attacking or blaming environmental groups in a time of environmental crisis seems like an absurdly misguided strategy. The author should re-evaluate their priorities.
Oil and gasoline are some of the most subsidized products in history. Too many Americans demand cheap gas, like it's a human right.
If solar had been similarly subsidized over the last 20 years, we'd see solar panels on every other business and house in every state except Alaska.
This is the situation, and environmental groups did not cause it. And they did not pivot towards undermining their own mission at scale, like they're being accused of.
I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort.
Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.
When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.
This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.
While I think it’s a positive thing for people in positions of power to speak up for the environment, I do not personally consider any of these people environmentalists. I think there is a huge difference between supporting a cause and living it.
Nevertheless, after rereading your original comment, I fully agree with you. These world leaders should be leading. It is disgusting and hypocritical that they flew 400 private jets to the COP conference.
I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized anything, unless you’re telling me that you didn’t mean to paint this effort as meaningless posturing by ineffective environmentalists that would only have negative results.
If nothing would make you happier, make that point in your comment. “Maybe this will make a difference in 20 years” or “nuclear advancement is what we need” would completely change the tone.
People at large aren't really protected in any way here. Neither is the environment at large. There are just a small number of people who advance their interests by selectively pretending to protect some insignificant part of the environment. That this sometimes has big repercussions like cancelling major projects is sold as a big win for the environment, when it actually is a tiny, insignificant and non-proportional one. So in the presentation, we are doing a lot and sacrificing a lot for the environment (not really, but it is presented that way) when we are actually just doing nothing but to hinder progress in other areas.
What? Of course humans have decided to harm the environment. It happens every day and has happened for as long as humans have existed. I don't think his comment "divides the world into good guys and bad guys" -- it merely points out an abundantly obvious truth.
Clear-cutting, overfishing, fossil fuel extraction, emissions, etc didn't just happen on their own -- they all required a human decision.
Whether or not humans making these decisions realize that their actions will contribute to the irreparable harm of the environment is a moot point. The decisions are made and the harm is done. Even so, willful ignorance and indifference to the impact of ones actions are decisions too.
If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.
Disclaimer: this comment is not about environmentalism or even the environmental impact. I’m not wading in those waters with HN.
It’s difficult to see this as a net positive given the financial hardship brought about to even make this headline a reality (note that even the headline is misleading and requires context).
It’s a bit like the person who goes out and purchases a vehicle, spends countless hours away from his family working on it, takes out additional loans to modify it, crashes it, repairs it and then wins 2nd place at the local meetup. You have to ask yourself, at what point was this worth it?
My take assumes that? I don't think it does. My point is simply that I don't see any evidence to say that someone who makes that claim is somehow better than someone that blames the environment. It's very easy to wrote those words down.
You're answering literally every comment on this thread, with this "passive aggressive" tone that will do nothing but derail the conservation. That's the definition of a troll. Why don't you make a point of your own instead?
Most of the things you mention (e.g. deforestation, water redistribution) are things people worry about. In fact, the people worried about large scale interventions are usually also the people most worried about emissions, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc. So I don't think there's much hypocrisy here.
I admit to exaggeration. Humans shoehorning themselves into environments first and then trying to change that environment is just a pet peeve of mine.
Draining swamps, irrigating the desert, damming rivers, reclaiming land from the sea or cutting down forests are bad enough but advocating to wipe out a species is a whole another level imo.
Yes, I am confused how an intentional intervention is so frowned upon when unintentional interventions are done on a continuous basis: mass deforestation, mass greenhouse emissions, mass oceanic acidification, satellite deorbiting, mass air transit, massive water redistribution projects etc
Maybe the key to not face the scrutiny of non-interventionists is to mask the intervention as an unrelated commercial venture, in which case it should be pretty much good to go.
But a responsible leader at the very least tries to address the fact that his proposal will throw a major chunk of the ecosystem under the bus and what's worse, on a completely unplanned timeline.
And maybe propose mitigating solutions.
Instead he immediately paints them as the enemy.
Some leader you got there.
reply