It isn’t enough to simply say that all energy schemes have tradeoffs. The tradeoffs need to be compared. Some are much worse than others. Comparing them isn’t easy. You essentially end up picking the least of several evils and “badness per unit energy consumed” should be a universal comparison.
We should always keep in mind that any given organization of any size is not united in opinion. I’m sure many people inside the NRDC opposed that solar plant. You can bet that the Union of Concerned Scientists for example has similar rifts on issues like nuclear energy.
Opposition to the pipeline is an example of herd mentality. To “not” oppose it will likely get an environmentalist ostracized from his or her monkey troop. It is irrational to oppose it because the oil will still be produced and sold on the world market. The fight should be to not develop the oil sands and that fight belongs to the Canadians, who apparently favor the income over global warming concerns.
One can oppose the development of the tar sands without opposing the pipeline. An analogy that comes to mind is a young engineer who gets a job building fighter jets that are being used in an unnecessary war. She could oppose the war in many ways, like protests, but it would serve no purpose to give her job up to someone else who will continue to build the planes.
[link] [reply]
No comments:
Post a Comment