> it's been necessary to prove it because of politics
This is fascinating to me, how political ideology models the same type of arms race as parasite or bacteria. We're at the point of the game that we deny the opponent's mere existence, as the arms race devolves beyond addressing or refuting their views.
Why work in the logical axis, where "green" solutions can have a carbon impact themselves. Instead, wash them away with loaded language ("second order") and then proffer the conclusion that it must be political if anyone questions you. There absolutely couldn't possibly be another reason, carbon emissions only matter when one side says so, and that's final.
Well, it’s really clear that wind energy pollutes less than natural gas, per kwh generated, once the plant is built. So then we looked at the costs for building the plant, where wind won again. So now we’re looking at the costs of building the materials that go into building the plant (a “second-order” effect), where, shockingly, wind wins again… against simply running the gas plant, excluding its cost of construction!
I would think most people would be happy with the one that doesn’t produce clouds of cancer-causing smoke every time you turn on a light switch, but I suppose some people are harder to convince.
yes, it does. So the far right can use the same semantic arguments (redefining words) as the far left. "wind energy pollutes", that's enough (for them).
I'm not taking that position, just showing how dirty politics becomes when you stop using logic and just go for the jugular with opponents instead of engage with them on a fair level. Again, the ones who engage fairly will die off - figuratively or literally. It's an arms race, or (whatever biologists call it when two bacteria evolve defenses and kill each other).
First and second order problems aren't woke they're rational observations to outcome. The first order problems are decarbonise the second order problems are the anti wind and anti solar and anti nuke argument. It's not designed to denigrate or put somebody down, its distinguishing between categories of reasoning and outcome drive.
I'm sorry if you think I said it to be dismissive or to put somebody down. I just want to try and assert that aesthetics and personal preference have to rank against a larger outcome.
I accept for some people their personal outcome outranks wider goals. I don't know how you discuss problems with that view: what's the basis of e.g. decarbonising, if you don't believe it's a problem or don't care, as long as your personal domain is unaffected?
This is fascinating to me, how political ideology models the same type of arms race as parasite or bacteria. We're at the point of the game that we deny the opponent's mere existence, as the arms race devolves beyond addressing or refuting their views.
Why work in the logical axis, where "green" solutions can have a carbon impact themselves. Instead, wash them away with loaded language ("second order") and then proffer the conclusion that it must be political if anyone questions you. There absolutely couldn't possibly be another reason, carbon emissions only matter when one side says so, and that's final.