Hacker News Reader

Comment by MetaWhirledPeas | Hacker News Reader

We need to be considering the impact of any big changes we make in regards to our energy. But the thing is, we already know the answers to most of these "but what about" questions and they've been answered time and time again, yet they keep being brought up and used in an effort to slow progress.

Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent?

THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS WORSE, most of the time.

Can we at least start at a place of the carbon dioxide is worse and go from there? I'm not against listening to reason, I'm just against people looking for every reason not to change how we gain and consume our energy.

View on HN

Exactly, it's not that we shouldn't be striving to mitigate the issue of handling components over their lifetime, but if we're to have any hope at all of this being a conversation that grows in sophistication over time, these shouldn't be dangled with an open-ended implication that they may or may not pose a fundamental challenge to the whole project of renewable energt. Such suggestions should be dismissed as punch drunk nonsense.

This is actually why I tell people recycling is mostly bad. The impact of some plastic in the landfill is less than the extra carbon emissions.

I straight up do not care a about plastic use at all anymore.

Specifically: provided the plastic is going to well-managed landfill, and not being washed into the oceans or waterways, then really, what is the problem? Once in landfill it's CO2 which won't end up in the atmosphere, or water, or really doing much of anything while it just sits there.

And every bit of it is oil production which won't be burned.

> And every bit of it is oil production which won't be burned.

Some plastics get incinerated, it isn't all sequestered in landfills.

> provided the plastic is going to well-managed landfill

Hence this qualifier. In my region, my trash goes to landfill. I've been to landfill! It's a modern design with stabilized storage cells, you can see them excavating it as they expand.

Yes, it's an environmental red herring. I do outdoor events and I do not allow plastic straws there because they end up in nature. Plastic in nature is obviously bad. Landfills are cheap, plentiful, and safe (even tested regularly for leachate) in the industrialized world.

And more importantly, the people who actually DO pollute by the ton want you to be more worried about your straws than the laws that allow them to do it. Don't fall for it.

> Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent?

> THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS WORSE, most of the time.

This exactly, and that's also the best argument in favor of nuclear.

Dioxide or monoxide? Dioxide is plant food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com