341–350 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now let's do coal and oil/gas
No let's do renewables. Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.
Because coal mining releases more radiation into the world than nuclear power.
...But yes; with the efficiency and price of solar, wind, and batteries now, nuclear makes much less sense.
In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…
It is fair and reasonable to demand that releasing a substance with new and unknown effects into the environment justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data that it is safe, or else get chopped. I think people's health is more important than corporate profits. If corporations played fair, I'd be more tempted to agree with your formulation than with mine, but history has shown that that isn't the c…
And, some people think that over-regulation on the insecticide use of DDT (which, to be perfectly fair is a nasty chemical and pretty much confirmed carcinogen, also was having negative effects on birds who were eating the poisoned insects and thereby getting unintended higher doses of the stuff) directly facilitated a rebound in mosquito populations in Africa, downstream from that a rebound in mosquito-borne malaria, and downstream from that a death toll debatably as bad or worse in terms of loss of human life than might've been had DDT use been more controlled and less banned outright.
Or think about how the banning of sulfur from cargo ship fuel in 2020 led to an 80% decrease in SO2 emissions... which is great for cutting harmful pollution around ports and such... But caused a measurable RISE in global temperatures because the sulfate aerosols had been reflecting sunlight off of the atmosphere, delaying global warming.
I don't know man, I don't have all the answers and I'm not trying to shill for mustache-twirlingly evil corporations who would turn us all into Soylent Green if it meant ten basis points more profit this quarter. I am just saying that there's gotta be a balance, and we have to recognize that there's no automatic, turn-your-brain-off safe side to default to. We always need science to verify that what we thought would happen happened, and that nothing we didn't intend to happen did, and in cases where the unforseen second-order effects should cause us to revisit the policy decisions we've made, even if just to revise and improve them rather than completely reverse course, we should actually do that rather than let political momentum override scientific validation and feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you aware of scientific evidence that supports mandating paper drinking straws?
I've long suspected that the ban of plastic drinking straws was a manufactured distraction to turn people against environmentalists. The environmental and economical effects are so small, while it so distinctly affects so many Americans every day.
But it is funny to me that, under the interpretation you're (facetiously!) suggesting, if someone believed that sincerely then they would essentially be trying to "attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence"... Presumably because that has the benefit of assigning the fault to whichever side this particular person happens to like less.
Out-group's malice is much easier for many to stomach than in-group's stupidity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your tone suggests you think they are generally not based on science and given cost benefit analysis. Probably a reflection of your media intake. In 1981 Reagan made cost benefit analysis a requirement for EPA. For example in 1984: the EPA " estimates that the benefits of reducing lead in gasoline would exceed the costs by more than 300 percent.... These benefits include improved health of children and others" Trump…
Reagan got it half right. The problem is the cost of figuring out the cost/benefit doesn't get considered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've long suspected that the ban of plastic drinking straws was a manufactured distraction to turn people against environmentalists. The environmental and economical effects are so small, while it so distinctly affects so many Americans every day.
I'm sure you're saying that fully tongue-in-cheek and not genuinely proposing a coordinated anti-environmentalist false-flag conspiracy. But it is funny to me that, under the interpretation you're (facetiously!) suggesting, if someone believed that sincerely then they would essentially be trying to "attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence"... Presumably because that has the benefit of assigni…
1. Give them some goodwill for doing something for the environment.
2. Distract from the things that did matter. They were happy to replace the straws in their drinks if that meant that people thought less about the burning of Amazonas to create graze-land for their hamburgers.
3. It made the environmentalists look like fools.
I don't question the "in-group stupidity" (I can think of some other examples of, let us say, misdirected campaigns.) On the other hand, considering what we have learned from the actions of anything from tobacco to fossil to pharmaceutical, you don't need to be particularly paranoid to suspect conspiracies both here and there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No let's do renewables. Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.
I guarantee you that "let's do" was "let's look at the pollution, including radioactive pollution, from". Because coal mining releases more radiation into the world than nuclear power. ...But yes; with the efficiency and price of solar, wind, and batteries now, nuclear makes much less sense.
But the price of batteries is far, far too high for renewables to make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "disaster" that killed nobody. Likewise, an even bigger "disaster" at Fukushima--that killed nobody. (The deaths from the evacuation are not deaths from the incident--they wouldn't have died if they had stayed put.)
Human deaths aren't the only measure of a disaster. The pollution was huge and even detected on the other side of the Pacific.
I don't know the numbers for Fukushima, but let's consider Three Mile Island. Same basic problem--some radioactive noble gas needed to be released to avoid trouble (and they actually released it rather than panic.) You are standing at the fence line, what do you do? Let's say you evacuate....hey, there's a street here. Cross it? Nope--it was more dangerous to walk across one ordinary street than to stay put.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now let's do coal and oil/gas
No let's do renewables. Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.
Reality: arguing for renewables over nuclear actually ends up making more fossil fuel use as the renewables are not viable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guarantee you that "let's do" was "let's look at the pollution, including radioactive pollution, from". Because coal mining releases more radiation into the world than nuclear power. ...But yes; with the efficiency and price of solar, wind, and batteries now, nuclear makes much less sense.
Didn't realize coal also did it in mining. It's evil stuff! But the price of batteries is far, far too high for renewables to make sense.
That's so much not the case now that renewables + batteries were by far the largest source of new generation in the US (yes, the US, with Trump actively trying to destroy them) last year.
Look up some of the new information coming out about them recently. Here, I'll give you a relevant video I watched recently to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM (channel is Technology Connections)