this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5314 readers
58 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not really enjoying this argument. The way I understand it, you argue against this way of saving energy, because you personally think that another way of saving energy should be preferred. I say, let people discuss this topic and then decide for themselves.
Also, what about a vegan who tries to save all kinds of energies? Should they not do that for some reason? I kinda get the feeling that you think that vegans shouldn't be doing any more, because they are doing enough. Is that how you see it? If not, sorry, then I misunderstood you.
Sorry, I was maybe too harsh there. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing to talk about. But I have observed with environmentalism a tendency to focus too much on changes that are of marginal consequence at the expense of changes that are more impactful. After all, we all have a limited amount of time and energy to devote.
Edit: To demonstrate, boiling 1 liter of water in an electric kettle emits 70g of carbon according to one person on the Internet (I'll assume that's generally true). In contrast, a flight produces 101g per km per passenger. Taking just one flight per year would dwarf any amount of spaghetti someone could eat.