Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Equusia]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

You said it well yourself

[Dakini]

Yeah, electric cars generally seem to be the way to go. They're a lot quieter too, which makes streets more pleasant, imo.

Surprisingly enough, that's actually seen as a problem. EVs are too awesome for their own good.

There are some in Japan and it's definitely pretty easy to get used to them. They just make a nice woosh sound as they displace air.

[Dakini]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

[Immoren]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

It was joke on my part mostly.
But I've seen apparently someone seriously suggest that. Or at least as seriously as pop-sci magazines/programs can get.
Apparently some think that solar panels on moon's sunside and transmitting it to earth via radiowaves would be good way to power good portions of the planet.

[Dakini]

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

It was joke on my part mostly.
But I've seen apparently someone seriously suggest that. Or at least as seriously as pop-sci magazines/programs can get.
Apparently some think that solar panels on moon's sunside and transmitting it to earth via radiowaves would be good way to power good portions of the planet.

So there are some people who still don't understand how the moon works and they like to suggest ways to obtain energy, is what you're telling me?



If anyone is confused, the Moon doesn't have a "Sun side" it has a side that faces the Earth all the time and a side that faces away from the Earth all the time. These both receive equal amounts of illumination from the Sun.

[Immoren]

It was joke on my part mostly.
But I've seen apparently someone seriously suggest that. Or at least as seriously as pop-sci magazines/programs can get.
Apparently some think that solar panels on moon's sunside and transmitting it to earth via radiowaves would be good way to power good portions of the planet.

So there are some people who still don't understand how the moon works and they like to suggest ways to obtain energy, is what you're telling me?



If anyone is confused, the Moon doesn't have a "Sun side" it has a side that faces the Earth all the time and a side that faces away from the Earth all the time. These both receive equal amounts of illumination from the Sun.

I think "sunny side" was bad phrasing on my part.
It's been long time since I read/saw those.
But I still should remember that.

[Syndicapolis]

It's like people saying that socialists can't buy things because we oppose private ownership of the means of production. It would be very hard, not to mention expensive, to only shop at co-ops (and actually, don't believe everything Chomsky says - worker-managed capital isn't technically socialist either). Likewise, it would be impossible for an environmentalist to live in a completely environmentalist way unless they were loaded or willing to be a total ascetic and probably go senile or die as a consequence. The best anyone can do is reuse, recycle, save energy, buy ethically where we can, try to use public transport or cycle, and raise awareness of the necessity of environmental protection.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'd like to petition a removal of the label 'environmentalist' from use by some people, for an inability to be specific enough.
Using the label this way is a trend fairly common in politics, and I'm unsure how common it is in everyday life but am sure it is a phenomenon.
Environmentalism on the whole doesn't pertain to opposing land, resources or any such thing from use at all. Such is more akin to primitivism. This thread is somewhat aimed at the wrong issue because, as many including myself have pointed out, environmentalists aren't hypocrites for living in a modern society and not abandoning all progress in the name of going 'back-to-nature'. Such IS primitivism, and while a certain extreme wing of 'environmentalism' as an idea may belong to that, it is not a trait of the movement as a whole. It would thus, be much more appropriate for those who do comport to that idea to utilize the label appropriate to their ideas, whence they may be suitably mocked for their hypocrisy in living in the modern world and not upholding their claimed values.

The problem, of course, is that 'environmentalism' is often the term utilized by organizations that fall under that mindset in order to shield themselves from as much criticism as possible. 'Earth First!' and other 'environmentalist' terror organizations probably embody this most wholly, but aspects of it can be seen in even the (sometimes) more moderate organizations like the Sierra Club or NRDC. Sometimes (such as is the case with the Sierra Club) while expressly claiming a belief that human development can be a positive thing for the environment and mitigate previous mistakes or current issues.

As an environmentalist, I'm sick to death of having such confusion seemingly deliberately created in order to allow a minor substrata of opinion with little support or justification to become the 'face' of the movement aimed at protecting nature.

[Imperializt Russia]

So are petroleum products.
And?

Technically uranium isn't natural. It's naturally forming, but it's not stable. Much too large an atom.

It doesn't have to be always uranium, though. There were experiments and some functional stuff with another radiactive elements. Uranium is 'just' most efficient one.

We should built as many reactors as is possible, and every possible resource, technicians, scientists, every international, private or government fund take into thermonuclear reactor development in the meantime, before fossile fuels will dissapear. Uranium is limited resource as well and true is, fission reactors can't fully replace coal and gas.

Only deuterium can give humanity enough energy plus it would be clean source: only waste would be non-radioactive helium.

And all the heavily irradiated internal components of the reactor which poison the reaction over time.

[Socialist Czechia]

It doesn't have to be always uranium, though. There were experiments and some functional stuff with another radiactive elements. Uranium is 'just' most efficient one.

We should built as many reactors as is possible, and every possible resource, technicians, scientists, every international, private or government fund take into thermonuclear reactor development in the meantime, before fossile fuels will dissapear. Uranium is limited resource as well and true is, fission reactors can't fully replace coal and gas.

Only deuterium can give humanity enough energy plus it would be clean source: only waste would be non-radioactive helium.

And all the heavily irradiated internal components of the reactor which poison the reaction over time.

Of course you always need some expensive and dangerous elements to built thermonuclear device point is, no such dangerous quantities of nuclear waste, just helium, which can be used for another purposes.

Humanity needs much more energy every year and only fusion power can give humanity enough energy in future centuries. No other choice. These incredibly inefficient and incredibly expensive fancy shmancy solar or wind energy or another fashion in eco-stuff never can't so never won't give humanity enough energy.
Fusion reactors are literally only major option for the future. It's simple as that.

[Immoren]

Humanity needs much more energy every year and only fusion power can give humanity enough energy in future centuries. No other choice. These incredibly inefficient and incredibly expensive fancy shmancy solar or wind energy or another fashion in eco-stuff never can't so never won't give humanity enough energy.
Fusion reactors are literally only major option for the future. It's simple as that.

Why not both?
...
...
Obviously anyone who opposes renewables opposes democratization of energy/power production. *nods*

[Imperializt Russia]

And all the heavily irradiated internal components of the reactor which poison the reaction over time.

Of course you always need some expensive and dangerous elements to built thermonuclear device point is, no such dangerous quantities of nuclear waste, just helium, which can be used for another purposes.

Humanity needs much more energy every year and only fusion power can give humanity enough energy in future centuries. No other choice. These incredibly inefficient and incredibly expensive fancy shmancy solar or wind energy or another fashion in eco-stuff never can't so never won't give humanity enough energy.
Fusion reactors are literally only major option for the future. It's simple as that.

Waste reprocessing could eliminate large portions of waste from fission, and "burning" what's left in fast reactors would significantly reduce the rest too. That can be done entirely on fission.

[Nervium]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

...Lasers...

[Immoren]

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

...Lasers...

We really ought to have satellites with huge solar panels that then convert that solar energy into laser energy and send it into groundside emitters.

[Orbola]

Well, I must say that people who advocate for this and then use oil based acrylics and waste paper to make their signs are hypocritical.

[Dakini]

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

...Lasers...

Without evaporating birds, blinding people or heating the atmosphere (which will probably absorb all the energy before it gets to the ground)?

[Dakini]

Well, I must say that people who advocate for this and then use oil based acrylics and waste paper to make their signs are hypocritical.

Acrylic paint is not made with oil.

[Avenio]

Why would putting solar panels on the moon help anything? So they can be farther away and hit by more meteorites because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up all the small ones?

And then the energy gets transported back... how..?

...Lasers...

The general idea, I thought, was to use microwave emitters to transfer energy from orbit to the surface rather than lasers. Since the frequency of microwaves used in such transmissions would be low-power enough and in the right frequency band to not cause any damage to people or wildlife.

[Willy Brandt]

It's nearly impossible to not use fossil fuel based products on a regular basis. Now, if a self proclaimed environmentalist didn't try to cut back on fossil fuel use when possible, I can see why one would yell "hypocrite."

[The Orson Empire]

Unless you want to live in absolute poverty, you have no choice but to use fossil fuels.

[Socialist Czechia]

Humanity needs much more energy every year and only fusion power can give humanity enough energy in future centuries. No other choice. These incredibly inefficient and incredibly expensive fancy shmancy solar or wind energy or another fashion in eco-stuff never can't so never won't give humanity enough energy.
Fusion reactors are literally only major option for the future. It's simple as that.

Why not both?
...
...
Obviously anyone who opposes renewables opposes democratization of energy/power production. *nods*

Obviously enviro-dudes know nothing about physics and economics You can't beat these two entirely by silly green ideology

[Immoren]

Why not both?
...
...
Obviously anyone who opposes renewables opposes democratization of energy/power production. *nods*

Obviously enviro-dudes know nothing about physics and economics You can't beat these two entirely by silly green ideology

I still don't see how it's either or issue.
And I don't oppose nuclear power.

[Esternial]

And all the heavily irradiated internal components of the reactor which poison the reaction over time.

Of course you always need some expensive and dangerous elements to built thermonuclear device point is, no such dangerous quantities of nuclear waste, just helium, which can be used for another purposes.

Humanity needs much more energy every year and only fusion power can give humanity enough energy in future centuries. No other choice. These incredibly inefficient and incredibly expensive fancy shmancy solar or wind energy or another fashion in eco-stuff never can't so never won't give humanity enough energy.
Fusion reactors are literally only major option for the future. It's simple as that.

That's not completely accurate.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/14/sol ... t-will-it/

Also, look up "Dyson sphere" if you're interested in a 'futury' method of harvesting solar power.

[Imperializt Russia]

Solar energy could power the world.
Humanity could colonise Mars.
The US Census Bureau could just say "fuck it" in 2020, and say "all number values are seven".

These are all valid statements, there's a significant issue of "likelihood" with all three.

[Esternial]

Solar energy could power the world.
Humanity could colonise Mars.
The US Census Bureau could just say "fuck it" in 2020, and say "all number values are seven".

These are all valid statements, there's a significant issue of "likelihood" with all three.

Doesn't make them any less worth exploring.