that is a ridiculous analogy because the same protestor will use approximately the same energy regardless of what they do that day. You sound like the folks that argue electric cars are more environmentall friendly because they use less energy than a bicycle but ignoring the energy of the passenger from just existing.
the energy a person sitting in a car uses is not much less than the energy a bicycalists uses. Its easy to see if you have access to a gym with a bicycle machine that tells you are many calories you burn. Go burn just 100 calories and now realize people need 2000 just going about their day and doing nothing special.
Are you talking about calories burned? Because riding in a car definitely has a bigger carbon impact than riding a bike. I thought we were talking about environmentalism here. When I said people use energy going to a protest I was referring to their transportation, not their frikkin metabolism.
yeah but whatever transportation they use is going to be the transportation they use for whatever they do. Im saying however they do the protest is going to be in line with how they run their daily lives and the net environmental impact is going to largely be the same. The bike thing was a seperate comparison to your way of thinking you may be mixing it up as some sort of direct comparison.
Anyway, transit and metabolic transmissions aside, what is your response to the below point? This is where I think your original comment about the reconstruction wasting resources really breaks down:
Isn’t it small thinking to worry about the pollution caused by the pipeline’s construction, when the pipeline itself is going to facilitate millions of times more pollution once it’s operational?
I don’t think you responded to the economic war of attrition angle, either. Making fossil fuel infrastructure projects as costly as possible to start, and risky to operate, is a direct attack on fossil fuel hegemony, since the only reason we do it is it’s cheaper and we are set up for it to be efficient. Also regular people need to feel the pinch at the pump to change their habits, which is a smaller but still valid goal.
It sounds like some people are willing to go to jail to monkeywrench the fossil fuel industry on a grand scale. I say more power to ‘em.
It stops nothing and adds to nothing. Ultimately users of oil will find oil to use be it is transported by pipeline or ship or train. The cost may slightly make non fossil fuels more competitive but I doubt enough to make such added pollution from its destruction. If we want to increase its cost we need to tax it and preferably use the whats collected to reduce renewables cost or better yet to make efficiency cheaper. It still amazes me how despite various programs so many structures are around under insulated…
that is a ridiculous analogy because the same protestor will use approximately the same energy regardless of what they do that day. You sound like the folks that argue electric cars are more environmentall friendly because they use less energy than a bicycle but ignoring the energy of the passenger from just existing.
“Energy of the passenger?”
the energy a person sitting in a car uses is not much less than the energy a bicycalists uses. Its easy to see if you have access to a gym with a bicycle machine that tells you are many calories you burn. Go burn just 100 calories and now realize people need 2000 just going about their day and doing nothing special.
Are you talking about calories burned? Because riding in a car definitely has a bigger carbon impact than riding a bike. I thought we were talking about environmentalism here. When I said people use energy going to a protest I was referring to their transportation, not their frikkin metabolism.
yeah but whatever transportation they use is going to be the transportation they use for whatever they do. Im saying however they do the protest is going to be in line with how they run their daily lives and the net environmental impact is going to largely be the same. The bike thing was a seperate comparison to your way of thinking you may be mixing it up as some sort of direct comparison.
Yeah I did not find that comment clear.
Anyway, transit and metabolic transmissions aside, what is your response to the below point? This is where I think your original comment about the reconstruction wasting resources really breaks down:
I don’t think you responded to the economic war of attrition angle, either. Making fossil fuel infrastructure projects as costly as possible to start, and risky to operate, is a direct attack on fossil fuel hegemony, since the only reason we do it is it’s cheaper and we are set up for it to be efficient. Also regular people need to feel the pinch at the pump to change their habits, which is a smaller but still valid goal.
It sounds like some people are willing to go to jail to monkeywrench the fossil fuel industry on a grand scale. I say more power to ‘em.
It stops nothing and adds to nothing. Ultimately users of oil will find oil to use be it is transported by pipeline or ship or train. The cost may slightly make non fossil fuels more competitive but I doubt enough to make such added pollution from its destruction. If we want to increase its cost we need to tax it and preferably use the whats collected to reduce renewables cost or better yet to make efficiency cheaper. It still amazes me how despite various programs so many structures are around under insulated…