*edited to correct conversion in title

  • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.

    You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.

      It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.

        What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.

            Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.

            I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.

        • Chunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.

          What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.

          But you have 2 flaws in your logic.

          1. we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!

          2. Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.

            It’s good that it’s begun.

            1. Is it better than nuclear?
    • iamthatis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it