Comment on Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?
HubertManne@kbin.social 1 year ago
Im sorry but I don't see damaging infrastructure which will then get rebuilt using even more energy as helping. Even worse the mitigation which means moving oil by train and ship and such. At least if you get it legally shut down it won't be rebuilt (but it will just get worked around). We need to reduce energy usage, not increase it.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Okay let’s say it just gets built again.
Congratulations, protestors, you just doubled the cost of the damn thing.
How does that not help?
War of economic attrition is a patriotic tradition in the US. The colonies won independence from the British not by superior might but by making the conflict too expensive for them to maintain.
HubertManne@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yeah but you have not removed the energetic incentive and rebuilding causes pollution. So we add pollution to stop global warming and pollution because it helps make things more expensive which the well to do can easily afford but will make it harder for the average person. Just seems to me its adding overall to pollution and not really solving our environmental issues.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You might as well say that all climate protest is counterproductive, because people use energy and create pollution just by walking out their door to go to the protest.
Isn’t it small thinking to worry about the pollution caused by the pipeline’s construction, when the pipeline itself is going to facilitate millions of times more pollution once it’s operational?
Sorry, you more or less repeated your point, and I understand you, but I’m just not convinced.
HubertManne@kbin.social 1 year ago
that is a ridiculous analogy because the same protestor will use approximately the same energy regardless of what they do that day. You sound like the folks that argue electric cars are more environmentall friendly because they use less energy than a bicycle but ignoring the energy of the passenger from just existing.