A similar thing happened to Cassie Jaye (with Red Pill) a former feminist who decided to make a documentary on men's right activists and ended up recognising men have problems to.
People who have money and a stake in green energy have the motivation and means to actively fight against the movie, while part-time volunteer activists don't.
That doesn't make the content of the film any more accurate [1], nor does it mean that the technologies put forward by profiteers of green energy less valid. This article too seems to cherry-pick problems without comparing the size to alternatives (which it doesn't offer).
It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right.
Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do.
Thanks for the link. It infuriates me that beef consumption is subsidized by all tax payers. Big money. The externalities of beef production are devastating (water use, extra pollution, incentive to destroy Amazon Basin, etc.).
If consumers had to pay an unsubsidized price for beef and other products that gut-punch the environment, that would be a step towards making things better.
I don't want to take away anyone's right to eat beef, I just want them to pay for the externalities.
> It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do.
Most people in America who drive a car don't have a choice, because it's they're in a situation where they either have reliable transportation or starve.
Nobody forced employers to expect their employees to have transportation, and nobody forced manufacturers to engage in unsustainable practices or to manufacture products that pollute to the extent that they do.
Meanwhile, commercial transportation is responsible for the majority of transportation carbon emissions, and industrial and commercial carbon emissions are more than four times as high as residential emissions.
> Most people in America who drive a car don't have a choice, because it's they're in a situation where they either have reliable transportation or starve.
Yet, they would have the choice to buy a small electric car and ride-share, but prefer to buy a huge gasoline SUV and ride alone.
And it's not just about the cars (sorry if my comment gave that impression). It's about consumption in general. Yes, industrial emissions are higher that communal emissions, but for whom are the products that the industry consumes? Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Apple wouldn't produce them if people wouldn't prefer a slightly better phone over sustainable living, then they watch "Planet of the Humans" and complain that Apple's attempts to "sustainable production" isn't as green as it seems.
Taxis and Uber are expensive, and you don't always live close to your coworkers. Electric cars are expensive, too.
I'd posit those with white collar jobs and whose incomes are high enough to afford a new electric vehicle would prevent much more pollution by cutting out the car and commute entirely and committing to working remotely.
> It's about consumption in general.
Industrial and commercial emissions overshadow residential emissions by more than a factor of four.
The consumer market is but a fraction of the entire market.
> Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Apple wouldn't produce them if people wouldn't prefer a slightly better phone over sustainable living
Nobody forced Apple into implementing planned obsolescence as part of their business strategy, or into unsustainable manufacturing practices.
No, they're actually cheaper overall[1]. And even if they were more expensive, is it too much to ask to take a temporary financial disadvantage over the future of the whole planet? Or do we wish to stand on burning ruins one day and say "it was cheaper for me this way".
> Industrial and commercial emissions overshadow residential emissions by more than a factor of four.
> The consumer market is but a fraction of the entire market.
The end consumer is always a person (with the exception of the military maybe, but even they claim to provide the service of protection to citizens). It's just that the emissions from the products you consume don't end at the electricity you use to charge them. "The industry" is just the hidden steps in the supply chain that create your products.
No company produces anything that isn't sold. If it's not sold to you directly, then it's sold to another company which uses it to create something to sell to you.
> Nobody forced Apple into implementing planned obsolescence as part of their business strategy, or into unsustainable manufacturing practices.
I don't know about Apple but I'm using a phone that is now 7 years old, still runs fine. If Apple uses planned obsolescence then maybe you shouldn't buy Apple products in the first place.
>Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks
No, they just continue to produce them, all while influencing policy that could curtail that consumption. I'm not saying that the individual is blameless, I'm saying that the average Joe's sphere of influence is orders of magnitude smaller than that of any billionaire.
Edit: Thank you for the link, it does give a bit of a palette cleanser.
They produce them for the average Joe. They don't force anyone to buy their products.
And if they would stop producing the products, what would happen? As long as people buy, someone else would produce them.
And, yes, a billionaire would have more power to change the world, if just buy giving them the ability to run a massive media campaign to change peoples minds.
Yet here we are in this very article blaming them for using their financial power to try and influence the public opinion.
Consumer rationality is irrelevant here - it is about markets being fungibile and stepping away being replaced by others. There is nothing fallacious about that. Arresting or killing drug kingpins didn't solve the drug problem - the demand mechanism ensured that others would try to fill the vacuum.
What would be fallacious is assuming that consumers are rational enough to avoid problems from usage especially when externalities are involved. See the many fentanyl overdoses for example.
> It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do.
it's mostly a collective action problem. while I certainly can (and do) choose to limit my meat consumption, I need a car to get to work. there are no buses that go from my home to the office, and there are very few jobs within walking/biking distance of my home that match my skillset. I do commute in a small, fuel-efficient hatchback, but this exposes me to increased risk of death or serious injury in an accident with the much heavier vehicles that other drivers typically choose in my area. the increased driving enjoyment of the lighter vehicle makes it worth the risk for me, but I can't really fault people who choose the safer (ie heavier and less efficient) vehicles for themselves and their families.
It seems like you're already trying to change your consumption, which is all I'm hoping (and arguing) for.
(Surely, there's always ways we could all do more like reduce the use of single-use plastic, or communicate the problem to more people in our communities, or financially support those who try to combat the issue. But like I said, it seems you (and me ;-) ) are already ahead of the curve here).
I am completely ignorant on costs and viability of green energy tech, but given the massive failure (by first world standards - load shedding is the norm in many developing countries) of the California energy grid now requiring forced blackouts, it does seem like someone was writing checks that they couldn’t cash.
Governments getting heavy handed tends to backfire, but we refuse to learn this lesson.
Being told that your ideas are horrible and ill conceived is not censorship - it is more free speech.
And Planet of the Humans certainly qualifies with the moving the goal post nonsense of fear mongering about landfill usage of mixed fiberglass turbine blades.
A similar thing happened to Cassie Jaye (with Red Pill) a former feminist who decided to make a documentary on men's right activists and ended up recognising men have problems to.