Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41217550

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Im curious to know what those 400 people said. Do you know?

Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?

Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.

> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing

Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.

They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists’ first choice would be to let people freeze to death. That being politically untenable their second choice is to continue using fossil fuels as the baseload and offset it as much as possible with renewables. They think nuclear is “an excuse” to continue the “business as usual” of affordable energy. They want energy to be unavailable and expensive. They oppose human progress and economic development as itself evil, even if the environmental impact is zero. Making energy expensive is their goal, not something they reluctantly accept. All the counter productive positions and bad arguments make perfect sense when you realize that they simply have a totally different goal from you.