Greenlash in Europe

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sunset posted one I was unaware of.  But let's say this was 100% true, why not making major moves in that direction?  Why the laser focus on just reduction of emissions?

Well, I don't really have a better answer, but to me it's still the problem Stewy describes regardig fusion power. If I (as a society) spend a certain amount on say filters to reduce car emissions, I have the data, I know I can expect a clear and quantifyable effect. If I spend the same amount on researching fusion reactors, I might turn out empty-handed. It's just hard to focus on things that aren't clearly visible.

That being said, of course I for one appreciate all efforts, and that carbon capture plant might be promising, I am of course all for making moves in that direction. Which is actually happening, including federal funding, so it's not like your initial statement is 100% accurate.

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I have zero issue with these when they are not implemented by force or in draconian fashion.  

Well. At a certain point, laws will play their parts in reducing emissions. And laws need some form of enforcement. Now regarding this specific law, this indeed seems to be quite an unnecessary and badly implemented policy. I'd rather support fairer and more reasonable measures.

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with this as well.  As long as such efforts are not overly onerous, I have zero issue with this.  The problem is when you get ideas like, "you'll own nothing and be happy", or the "fifteen minute city".

OK, own nothing and be happy, as far as I know, is apparent twaddling; as for your link, I don't really know what to say about that. Reducing car traffic is not the worst of ideas, and that 15 minute city sounds comfy... I don't see the sinister side behind it really, as long as no one forces me to take the nearest grocery store instead of travelling through the whole town to pick one of my choosing. If I use my car for doing so, I find it acceptable to pay a certain price for that comfort.

I feel maybe that is because I am not really ambivalent on the climate change issue. I feel science tells us there's a asteroid coming, its impact will be devastating, and we rather argue that this is quite inconvenient really, hurts the economy, costs money, annoys, might restrict me in my lifestyle and my freedom to blow out how much greenhouse gas I please, and so hey maybe it won't be all that bad or there isn't even an asteroid in the first place, because science was wrong before. I'm not saying you are following that path, but there's a certain tendency to agree on some easy-going, cosmetic measures that aren't sufficient, declare it handled as much as was reasonably feasible and the asteroid won't care. Admittedly, for this analogy to make any sense it must be a really slow moving asteroid, but you get the point. In times of global crisis where wide-reaching devastation is the alternative, there's always - at some point that I do not declare reached - a need for drastic measures and restrictions and also enforcing, I can not logically deny that in theory.