Difference between revisions of "Myths/there are no sustainable energy sources/impact"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (1 revision) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Myth== | |
| − | + | The "impact" argument against sustainable energy points out that it has environmental impacts and isn't perfectly "clean". (Note: this claim should probably be reclassified as [[irrelevancies|irrelevant]].) | |
| − | + | ==Reality== | |
| − | == | + | This argument is a {{l/ip|straw man}} (nobody is claiming that it is perfectly clean), a mis-[[issuepedia:interpretive framing|framing]] of the issue as being about "cleanness" rather than {{l/ip|sustainability}}, and {{l/ip|moving the goalposts}} to infinity (there is no human activity that is ''perfectly'' clean, that has ''no'' environmental impacts; we will ''always'' need to clean up after ourselves). |
| − | [[ | ||
| − | + | It is ''technically'' true, of course – any method of energy generation is going to have some impact if multiplied by the energy needs of enough people – but some methods have [[../consumption|far less impact]] than others. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 23:01, 1 July 2015
Myth
The "impact" argument against sustainable energy points out that it has environmental impacts and isn't perfectly "clean". (Note: this claim should probably be reclassified as irrelevant.)
Reality
This argument is a straw man (nobody is claiming that it is perfectly clean), a mis-framing of the issue as being about "cleanness" rather than sustainability, and moving the goalposts to infinity (there is no human activity that is perfectly clean, that has no environmental impacts; we will always need to clean up after ourselves).
It is technically true, of course – any method of energy generation is going to have some impact if multiplied by the energy needs of enough people – but some methods have far less impact than others.