Hacker News Reader

> It's a concept most environmentalists I encounter look upon as the dark side of the force, like if they used economics and human selfishness towards a positive end it would somehow take away their environmentalist virtue. Guess it's hard to be a martyr when you take away the sacrifice. Doesn't help that they usually look down on the individuals in question, and can't seem to understand why "pay more and do less so you can make a negligible personal impact on the problem, because it's the right thing to do." is a hollow argument for many people.

Do you think an environmentalist would read this description and think, "that's me to a tee!"? If not, do you think you are more perceptive about the motives, beliefs, and strategies of environmentalists than they are themselves?

Your point would be better made without the dubious theories about the beliefs and motives of environmentalists.

No, they probably wouldn't think that. But that's how it comes off in many cases. Not all, but many. See the parent comment relating environmentalism to the romantic martyrdom of those concentration camp prisoners who offered comfort to others and gave up their last piece of bread. And its argument that Americans who refuse to stop flying/driving/using plastic for their job are somehow "emotionally" the same as Bolsonaro's politically motivated denialism.

You need look no further than any Hacker News discussion of climate change to see tons of comments of how people should stop eating beef, stop eating all meat, stop driving so much, stop flying, pay more for clean energy, pay more in taxes, even stop having children (at which I will never cease to /facepalm), all with the theme of "There is no way you have any valid argument against any of this, so if you refuse to make these sacrifice you're part of the problem."

I'm all for environmental regulation, I'd even be in favor of a carbon tax, but modern environmentalism has a huge messaging problem that makes both nearly impossible in the US outside of deep blue zones. It's way too moralistic and way too unwilling to adapt(ironic, given its cause). Maybe if environmentalists turned down the volume on climate change and talked more about good jobs, clean air, clean water, they'd make more headway. Find common ground and go with that, because in a functioning democracy we all move forward together (given a large majority) or not at all. And in my opinion anyone who truly cares about solving climate change should prioritize progress over virtue.

I'm not sure environmentalists doubt the economics, or your blanket dismissal. More the huge delay in waiting for the economics to maybe win out. Hence calling for subsidies to the alternative, not as we currently do, subsidise the (formerly) profitable incumbents.

I suppose I reluctantly wear the environmentalist label as that's how some see me. It's not how I would see myself.

A fix is removing all subsidy from fossil fuels and instead subsidising renewables along with increased insulation and combined community heat and power schemes. Except I don't see that as environmentalism, just common sense, whether considering an individual family and house, or a town or national scale.

> LED light bulbs

I live in the midwest and my friends still complain that the government forced them to switch to the new bulbs.

There's a lot of weird anxiety about doing things to help the environment from a lot of folks that makes them not want to do even things that benefit themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that many people preferred in favor of mainly fluorescent bulbs which are an environmental hazard. Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick.

It's a great example of poor environmental policy and you dismiss criticism as "weird anxiety". It's not weird to dislike other people forcing you to make choices that they think are for your own good.

> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings

Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy.

> Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick.

Do you think we would be better off using incandescents?

I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think without government intervention LEDs wouldn't be where they are today, which is partly due to that weird anxiety I mentioned, and that's unfortunate.

It's still a drop in the bucket compared to, for instance, closing the SUV "light truck" efficiency loophole. Which one was more politically palatable? The one with the grand gesture and minor actual savings of course. Forgive me for getting a little cynical about government policy, it must be that weird anxiety creeping up again.

Also you need to take into account the total manufacturing cost of the light. I believe that only recently have some LEDs (and not good ones with a decent spectrum) reached parity with incandescents in terms of TCO.

Finally, I would look at the market for computers and find how much government intervention it took to advance the technology in that industry. Why would the market for light bulbs be any different? Businesses had already switched to fluorescent for cost savings, why can't consumers be allowed to make similar cost/benefit choices?

There are no economic fixes, there are only fixes to growth. In that we reduce the growth of the economy and the growth of population and consume less... until such a point that our consumption of resources matches their production by the environment. Anything else is rhetorical bullshit meant to placate the masses... and make them feel better about being Bolsonaro which all you are.

I call it environmental austerity in order to pay the environmental debt accrued through economic development.