this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
91 points (96.0% liked)
World News
32315 readers
870 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
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
Except when we have 100% renewable low emission electricity and transition away from CFC refrigerants, they’ll essentially drop to zero emissions. There’s nothing particularly bad about air conditioning. It is more and more becoming a necessity for survival due to climate change. If you don’t like that, your target is the fossil fuel industry, not the working class people who use air conditioning to avoid suffering.
Meanwhile, animal agriculture will always be extremely harmful to the environment due to methane, nitrous oxide, and various other issues. I’m happy for you to criticise people for using air conditioning if you’ll commit to going vegan.
You do realize that renewables still have an emissions footprint from manufacturing, transportation, deployment, transmission, and recycling/retirement... Right? That they're limited lifespan disposable goods? So are batteries.
Moreover, each new solar panel has an opportunity cost in that it could be used to supplant fossil fuels in an area of the world that would actually benefit from it, rather than helping a facility THAT ALREADY HAS A TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM cool things down further because Americans are too spoiled with their extreme electricity consumption patterns to do anything else.
Yeah, are you going vegan, though?
one has nothing to do with the other
sure it does, if you’re gonna make the claim that people should suck it up and suffer from the heat for the benefit of climate change, then you should also believe that people should suck it up and suffer from not consuming animal products.
no. one has nothing to do with the other.
You should stop using , because it has negative environmental impacts.
Replace thing with either animal products or air conditioning.
if one or the other benefits the environment (i'm dubious), then doing either is good, and if you only do one that's still good. but one has nothing to do with the other.
“these two things share this similarity, but they have no similarities with one-another” ok
if there is a train wreck and i go start pulling people out of the wreckage, i'm not doing something wrong by ignoring chemicals spilling out of the train.
you can’t stop a chemical spill and pull people out of a wreckage at the same time, so it’s not really a close comparison. it’s more like, if you loudly proclaim that anyone who’s not boycotting nestle is an asshole, but then you’re not also boycotting coca cola, people might point that out as a way to demonstrate that you can’t criticise others without expecting to receive criticism in return.
if both are good (and, again i am dubious either of them is), you don't need to do both to be doing a good thing, and doing one and not the other would still be good.
I tentatively agree with that - if we add on, “and a person who does not boycott either or both corporations isn’t doing anything wrong” then that’s basically my point. I’m highlighting hypocrisy.
i am dubious that they do, in fact, have any similarities.
ok, which of these claims do you doubt?
both. it seems to me that being vegan has never stopped the animal agriculture industry from growing. similarly, not-using air conditioning has never reduced the amount of energy produced. i'm open to being wrong about these, but i haven't seen any compelling evidence.