*edited to correct conversion in title

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

      I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

      Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.

      When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

      I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

      That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level

        Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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
              ·
              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.

              • Chunk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                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.