• Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    When our living conditions deteriorate gradually, we adapt to these conditions instead of fixing of them. But sudden threats get sorted out immediately.

    Coal has done far more damage than nuclear energy ever will, but coal has over 2300 stations worldwide and nuclear has 400.

    A perfect example of the ‘Boiling Frog Syndrome’.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I read somewhere that the boiling frog thing is total bullshit. They’ll totally jump out once the water gets too hot.

      • Meron35@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        2 months ago

        The frogs only stayed in the water because Friedrich Goltz lobotomized the frogs beforehand. Which makes it a perfect metaphor because the Murdoch media has definitely lobotomized the public.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        in this case the boiling frogs can’t jump out except for the ones with the top 1% of the cash in the pot so,

        still applies i think

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    rich bastards claiming that windmills would harm them through visual pollution.

    you fucking fuckwits, smog is visual pollution. But they don’t care.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      you fucking fuckwits, smog is visual pollution.

      I’m old enough to remember people losing their shit at China over the 2008 Beijing Olympics drowning in a toxic cloud. The international outcry was such that the state spent a decade cleaning all that shit up (which produced its own wave of “Has Chinese Eco-fascism Gone Woke?!” screamer articles in turn).

      But their rate of pollution has been falling steadily for the last two decades, in no small part because the state wasn’t fighting an uphill battle against corporate slobs in white doctor’s coats trying to tell everyone that smog wasn’t happening/was good aktuly.

      Meanwhile, US expenditures on lobbying, denialism, and greenwashing stretch into the billions of dollars annually. And its not hard to understand why, when the ROI is $7T/year on the international stage.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        ROI is continued existence for some. It’s a similar reason to why the leadership of the west is so against communism and socialism: because the best path forward doesn’t include them.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          ROI is continued existence for some.

          “Makers” versus the “Takers”

          the leadership of the west is so against communism and socialism

          That’s far more just a historical boogieman. Nixon spent half his career insisting every institution from Harvard to Hollywood was infested with Communists, then made the high point of his career a photo-op with The Great Helmsman himself. To say “the leadership is against communism” you really need to blinker yourself to decades of amicable international cooperation.

          Its only when local communities begin to express a bit of self-determination that western leadership remembers “Communism” is a dirty word.

    • fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Windmills are a whole lot better than burning coal, but aren’t perfect. Recyling the blades after their 20 year lifespan is a nightmare.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        nothing is perfect. we need imperfect things that don’t emit co2. windmills have many detractors but at the moment represent mostly co2-free power if we’re willing to take it. and recycling industries for solar and wind are coming, they’ll never be perfect either, but when the waste stream becomes lucrative enough they’ll find a way.

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          but when the waste stream becomes lucrative enough they’ll find a way.

          The problem with capitalism in a nutshell.

          • SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Because mercantilist wind turbine blades recycle themselves? Or did you mean to imply that communist wind turbines recycle themselves?

            • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I mean to say that when financial incentive is the only incentive then a lot of things that would make this a better world end up on the scrap heap.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Problem is it’s so freaken labor intensive right now. You could tool your way around it but you need serious volume of standardized units. Plus you need people willing to take huge risks which is difficult to justify given that the recycling industry as a whole is a license to print money. Why risk an explosion when you can turn out yet industry specific process? Also you know the tradeoffs. Basically the less chance of an ignition the less material recoved.

          So you go the fully automated route or a low income workforce, which to be fair to the Western world, they are working really hard to produce.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I doubt it’s any worse than the other mountains of waste we produce. I’d wager it’d barely even register.

        • fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          At first yeah, it would be fairly insignificant, but if you ever stood close to these things you know how huge they are… It’s not easy to move them around and I don’t think we’ve found much use for the materials they are made of to recycle them. Also we are supposed to reduce these mountains of waste not use them as a justification to waste even more.

          But regardless, I am sure one people will realise how much we already fucked the climate as more and more extreme weather events pop around, we’ll see more focus on renewables or at least carbon neutral sources. I think the most appealing source atm is nuclear which, although not renewable, it has a fairly small CO2 footprint, tiny size, huge and stable output and there are even reactors that can “burn” their waste to further increase their efficiency.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Smog is like vaccines. People don’t see the smog/disease anymore, so they think they don’t need the protections/vaccines.

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    inb4 comment section full of uncited factoids and personal attacks

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Ha ha your mom suck me good and hard through my jorts

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      factoids

      Factoids are wrong to begin with, just like claims that coal ash is significantly radioactive.

      • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Studies show that ash from coal power plants contains significant quantities of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, uranium and thorium[1]. To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.

        The process of burning the coal concentrates contaminants of all kinds tenfold compared to their original concentration. So even if it isn’t significantly radioactive, we shouldn’t be allowing the other shit in there either.

          • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            2 months ago

            My apologies.

            D. Grenêche, ‘Déchets radioactifs, la vérité des faits et l’exactitude des chiffres’, Revue nationale du nucléaire, 2019.

        • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Coal energy shouldn’t be used anymore. Recently UK has closed the last coal plant. This is mainly due to renewable energies.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not defending coal energy. It’s a repeated and factually wrong claim from nuclear power proponents that trace radiation that is more concentrated in ash is somehow on par or even worse than nuclear waste or catastrophes. Just because that claim is wrong doesn’t automatically result in coal ash being fine and dandy.

          • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Both have a storage problem. But coal has a destroys the atmosphere problem. So, yes, trade-offs.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            never seen anyone claim that trace radiation from coal is more of a problem, just that it is a problem. cite someone making this “repeated” claim lol otherwise looks like u did a strawman

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Arguing that coal ash is less bad than the very rare nuclear disasters is also a bad take IMO.

            Both have issues. It doesn’t mean that we should abandon nuclear for coal, nor the other way around.

            Personally I’m a fan of nuclear, and I’m against coal, but realistically, there’s too many data points to argue, and bluntly, I don’t have sufficient information at this time, to competently and fully argue either way.

            Fact is, green energy, like solar and wind (among others) are better than both nuclear and coal (and even gas and whatnot). I just don’t want to pretend that either nuclear or coal is a better ecological choice than renewables.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a Prius. Not for any stupid “I’m saving the planet despite still driving an ICE car” reasons, because I save a lot on gas.

    Doesn’t stop every “rollin’ coal” asshole from doing it when they drive by me because “haw haw dumb librul hippie.” You sure showed me by spending a lot more on gas than I do.

    • YAMAPIKARIYA@lemmyfi.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Man I recently got a 2010 Prius off an auction. Very cheap purchase and it works great already getting savings on gas. But I did notice people have the urge to want to pass or take over when I’m in it even though I’m definitely going fast enough. Funny enough it doesn’t happen when I’m in my Miata going the same speed.