As a general rule I do not listen to people who fly hundreds of thousands of miles per year in private jets while suggesting that others sacrifice.
I think I would be unable to function in the modern society if I wouldn't trust experts (in their fields).
Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science
So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims.
You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said
It's not appeal to authority when I go to Einstein and ask about quantum mechanics and then reference his answer that light manifest a wave-particle duality; he is after all an worldwide recognised expert in quantum mechanics. But! If I were to ask him about whether abortion and then say: Abortion is so and so because Einstein says it's so and so and he's worldwide recognised expert -- that is appeal to authority.
any individual person considering only themselves, would be correct to choose filament over LED because of cost and very little electricity savings. However, every light socket in the country switching to LED in aggregate represents a significant amount of energy savings for power plants and therefore less carbon output. this is a basic complication.
going one level deeper, there is the supply chain of LEDs vs filament bulbs and the relative impact of their carbon footprints and mining of rare earth minerals. This is where it starts getting difficult to parse which is a net gain for the planet.
another level below that is what you cite, the costs associated with the transition itself. A lot of energy (both electrical and human) is wasted by both supporters and detractors arguing in the public sphere, spending entire global broadcasts on the subject, flying around in private jets, etc. How much of this is necessary depends on the net savings from the first two levels, which is pretty hard to calculate accurately.
So you do you, but personally I try not to commit to blanket statements that erase all nuance and subtlety - generally that leads to missing important context.
The government doesn’t need to force people to use green technologies, they are usually better.
Lawn care products are a good example as well. Gas powered mowers, edgers, blowers etc are being phased out because their electric counterparts are simpler, quieter, and cheaper. Not because the government forces people to use them.
A first principles understanding would suggest that more efficient technologies will win in the market usually because of reduced cost.
The same is happening with cars as more companies invest and scale up their technology. Government incentives are accelerating this of course, which is good.
In theory, yes. In practice, they just seem to be more expensive.
It is amazing how the luminous intensity of an LED bulb can decrease over time.
Any consumer would choose flourescent given the chouxe in a vacuum