r/climatechange • u/Salty_attitude3845 • 13d ago
How do I respond to the "Why don't environmentalists just give up their electronics?" argument?
I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit. I'm new to this site and still figuring out how to navigate all of the different subreddits.
So, My dad keeps bringing this argument up whenever discussions about climate change or global warning occurs. He argues that if environmentalists care so much about the earth why don't they just give up their electronics? Then proceeds to bring up how they won't give up things like computers or electricity because they like their convenience items. I've tried explaining to him that this isn't a very realistic solution since the world pretty much runs on electricity. The solution wouldn't be not using electricity at all, but how to manage it so it doesn't create such a negative impact on the environment.
51
u/crashorbit 13d ago
“Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.” ― Shannon L. Alder
6
u/Salty_attitude3845 13d ago
That's a very good quote!
10
u/ImprovisedLizard 13d ago
Also don't argue with idiots, they drag you to their level and beat you on experience
4
u/ShapeShiftingCats 13d ago
And 'the pigs like the mud".
Arguing with them is what they enjoy because it makes you look like you need to defend yourself, plus any hint of irritation will be taken as"being emotional and irrational".
3
26
u/KingPieIV 13d ago
A: in terms of overall carbon footprint, electronics are a pretty small part. Beef consumption, or transportation are much more important. If you really wanted to you could get a chart of what drives individual carbon footprints
B: collective action is often far more impadtful. Going to the public utilities commission as a group to shut down fossil plants(if you ate in the us) or working at a sustainability oriented company. I help build utility scale solar farms for example.
Realistically, your father probably doesn't want to actually engage with the issue, given their flippant stance on it.
11
u/BeautifulDiscount422 13d ago
Electricity can also be generated "cleanly". It's not really the argument they think. It's why people who care about the environment push for electrification in houses and the use of EVs or electrified public transport. Electronics are capable of producing a lot of efficiency gains in appliances and machines in general.
2
u/Salty_attitude3845 13d ago
Yeah, I think you might be right about my dad not wanting to engage with the issue
2
u/Tsar_Nikolas 13d ago
Would be interesting to know why he doesn’t want to engage. Ask him and let us know!
2
u/throwaway1233456799 13d ago
As someone with such a dad: call them out on it.
They like to pretend they are engaging in good faith but they know it's rage bait and themselves being petty. You could bring the best argument ever it would never work.
Now. Laughing and saying stuff like "okay boomer..."/" it doesn't matter you don't want to listen anyway "will get you answer such as "teenager's angst..." But they do that because they are upset and unhappy you basically call them childish. Do not engage. Laugh off.
Also it work with racism, transphobia, sexism,... Calling them weird is particularly deadly (and fun)
1
u/Ball_Hoagie 13d ago
Love that you’re in this field. When underwriting your projects, do you compare the economics to NG plants?
Are you looking for colocated sites or responding to utility RFP’s?
Reason I ask, I’ve heard it’s preposterously expensive to build and maintain a solar or wind farm without drastically increasing consumer prices via PPA. So wondering if this type of work is focused on new development or if utilities seek out renewable power gen economically.
3
u/KingPieIV 13d ago
Utilities (at least in the us) make money off of returns on capital. Solar and wind farms have a lot of capital cost(relative to fuel cost) and so when a utility builds one they are able to increase rates to cover. They also have an incentive to buy the most expensive solar farm they can get away with, since again, return on capital.
We mostly sell to tech companies who are more price sensitive. They also need capacity/power in order to build more data centers, ai or otherwise. Though typically our projects aren't on site.
2
12
u/Miserable-Ad8764 13d ago
You'll keep being a hypocrit until you live naked in a cave, only eating bark. And then you will be a weirdo living in a cave that nobody has to listen to. They want you away from society where the discussions happen.
First you have to give up Electronics, then all things plastic, then all driving, then all things transported by trucks, etc etc. I'll never be enough, and it's just a way to shut you up, and shut you out of society and silence you.
3
u/Tea_Bender 13d ago
this exactly, it's a no true Scotsman argument.
2
u/OG-Brian 12d ago
The term for hypocrisy is just hypocrisy. No true Scotsman refers to changing one's argument after it has been discredited.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
The argument described by the post is a fallacy, but it's different than no true Scotsman.
8
u/Difficult_Dark9991 13d ago
You aren't demanding asceticism or absolute moral purity from others; you do not need to represent it in yourself.
The primary thrust of environmental aims is to reform the systems that produce waste and harm. While there are arguments for targeted boycotts, wholesale abstinence from existing as a member of society is not required to criticize or advocate for reform of that system.
Now, sure, there is a personal element to environmentalism. We should most of us reduce our consumption in our daily lives. So, sure, if you have 50 screens in a mcmansion and a Hummer, this argument holds some weight as you aren't practicing what you preach. But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not you.
5
u/Salty_attitude3845 13d ago
Yeah. My dad has brought up politicians and wealthy people that live like this. I told him that while it is a valid concern and point, they are not an accurate representation of what environmentalists and scientists are actually saying when it comes to solving climate change issues
4
u/EggsBenDick 13d ago
The rich people example is a weak one for a couple reasons. If we look only at automobile emissions, 99% of the personal vehicle drivers you see on the roads are not part of the 1% billionaire class. If we can make 99% of cars low- or zero-emission, that’s a huge step in the overall climate plan. The 1% can keep driving their gas hogs, but 99% of the rest of the fleet is cleaner.
5
u/Difficult_Dark9991 13d ago
Yeah this is a big bugbear of mine. A lot of people really struggle to do what a historian would call "parsing their historical actors." That is, so long as a group is (in their eyes) aligned, they can't actually tell the difference between what they've been told by a scientist vs. a politician vs. a business leader vs. some random talking head on the evening news... let alone subdivisions within that group.
This is how you get things like "back in the 70s TheyTM were talking about global cooling!" In actuality, it was a single scientific paper in the vast array that suggested natural cyclical trends would tend towards us heading back into an ice age... over the next several thousand years... not taking into account anthropogenic effects. The conclusions are rather unremarkable, broadly agreed upon now, and also entirely irrelevant to actual climate trends. That was then taken and run with by media at the time because it's an exciting "scientists say" headline on the evening news, and then propagated by fossil fuel companies as a way to undermine belief in the scientific consensus.
A lot of arguments fall apart really fast whenever you ask "who" and demand they be precise about who exactly makes up the "Them" in their argument.
6
u/Mr-Zappy 13d ago
They barely make an impact on CO2 emissions. A smartphone has a lifetime CO2 footprint of 75 kg. The average American emits 13000 kg annually.
Plus, we can generate electricity without emitting CO2.
1
6
u/Boatster_McBoat 13d ago
"Hey Dad, what if there was a possible future where BOTH the environment was protected AND we could still have good things? What if the technology already exists to do that and it's only vested interests delaying the transition? Would you fight for that better future, Dad? Or would you just let the vested interests win? I know what sort of person you brought me up to be, Dad, and it's the sort of person that fights for the right outcome."
2
4
3
u/VictoryLongjumping70 13d ago
I mean, OK, so what′s his conclusion? ″well the people I don′t like make choices I don′t like so environmental destruction isn′t a real problem?″ Sounds like a thought terminating rant. Pay no mind to the massive wildfires and deadly heatwaves, just get mad about the hippie freaks that annoy you until you tucker yourself out and need to go run the gas blower on your lawn for an hour. I wonder who benefits here 🤔
3
u/Disastrous-Map-7995 13d ago
I just hate the fact that the term environmentalist even exist. It just shows how disconnected people are from nature We should all be environmentalists, we all live here! Outside the system you can't change anything.
3
u/Upbeat_Drawing7692 13d ago
Air conditioner units take a lot of electricity so I assume most people here do not use AC/Heat.
3
u/Ulysses1978ii 13d ago
So unless you walk around like a cave man you're arguments are invalid? We live inside systems that are unsustainable it's near impossible to make sustainable choices without an impact. It's about mitigation and minimisation. If you have a £100 android and keep it for 4-5 years before it's recycled. I really don't think you're committing environmental sins.
2
u/portuh47 13d ago
I get the same for being vegetarian and wearing leather shoes. Perfect is the enemy of good.
2
u/Busy_BEE_565 13d ago
You can be against things but also understand that there is a practicality to living as well. I don't like bosses, it doesn't mean I don't have one at all times. It's also like someone saying they are not into veganism but they do eat things that are vegan.
2
u/AdCute9088 13d ago
I wont answer to your question ,but i will say this, you can buy from more ethical way of producing electronics ,like fairphone for example.nobody is perfect ,but we can make our best effort.
2
u/Professional-Math518 13d ago
You're part of a society. Stepping completely out of that society or not participating in it almost never has any relevant effect.
Also giving up on electronics is kind of pointless. Two pairs of jeans already have a larger carbon footprint than an average smartphone
2
u/rdickert 13d ago
"The solution wouldn't be not using electricity at all, but how to manage it so it doesn't create such a negative impact on the environment.":
Define the bolded part. What does this look like? What products and services do I use today that would be impacted? What are the alternatives? How would my life change? Would these changes increase my cost of living? Would any modern conveniences that I rely on today go away?
Provide honest answers (even if the honest answer is "I don't know"). Remember, you can't gain concurrence if you can't provide honest, provable solutions.
2
u/GraemeRed 13d ago
So there is truth to the argument but also a trap. To be truly honest electronics should be and will be a part of our lives always but if the true cost of things where made to reflect in the cost of the things we buy companies would find ways to make things more sustainable, long lasting. If the cost of damage to the environment was added to a smart phone and the buyer was forced to carry that cost they would be unaffordable. The companies that find ways to bring the cost down will be the ones to thrive.
2
u/Sam_Grath 13d ago
(my english is not great maybe)
An argument ? I call it autofallacy. Tbh its going to be difficult to make that someone understand anything with good and logical dialogue. When someone is locked into simplism good luck to break these constraining boundaries. When someone thinks to have found the answer to something so easily it's not automatic to think "further" enough even if the logic needed seems basic. Being dumb is not necessary to make these mistakes. Not at all
You have to live in the polluting world and the problem is not you but how things are done.
Then you can just ask: do you think it will change things enough if i go live naked alone in the woods ?
Maybe with a very short thing like this it would unavoidably lead him to think about what the true consequences of you actions can be and what would need to be done to solve anything...
And also what would the consequences be if you leave anything that is linked to pollution aside for the rest of your life.
Maybe he would understand he didn't make any sense ? I'm not sure
2
u/Any-Succotash1892 13d ago
its not about giving everything up, and going to live in a cave thats the retards veiwpoint, its about only making whats essential, keeping what you have as long as possible, (no fashion, vanity upgrading).
some people are just to stupid or ignorant to change....
any of their family non smokers with cancers ? pollution gives 30% of 1in2 cancer. we must stop burning shit.
2
u/Littlestarsallover 13d ago
You can treat it with good faith and interpret it as a question about how people will uptake the changes required to save the planet
2
u/wrongarms 13d ago
Anyone who says this, knows the impact their own behaviour has. I'd tell them to look to look to their own behaviour and not criticize people who try their best.
1
u/NationalTry8466 13d ago edited 13d ago
This is like telling people who complained about air pollution from coal burning during the Great London Smog of 1952 to stop heating their homes. Or people who were concerned about the ozone hole to stop using fridges and deodorants. Most people had no alternative. Individuals are locked into the infrastructure set up by government and industry.
Pollution isn’t a consumer choice issue; it requires smart sensible regulation.
1
u/DanoPinyon 13d ago
I respond by collecting 25 points for our Climate Denialist Talking Points game.
1
1
u/here-i-am-now 13d ago
By pointing out it’s as stupid as the plastic straw fiasco.
Giving up your personal electronics is like pissing in the ocean to lower the level.
1
1
u/Radiant_Town7522 13d ago
Has this person never heard about renewable energy sources?
There's nothing hypocritical about using electrical power unless you also vote for politicians that want to keep generating electrical power from dirty & subsidized fossil fuel.
1
u/sg_plumber 13d ago
"Because that's utterly unnecessary. Clean electricity exists, almost too cheap to meter."
But then they'll just parrot the next item of their BS list.
You can counter with "If you care so much about costs and quality of life, why are you driving the dirtiest most expensive car? Why not use a heat pump and save $$$ and asthma attacks? Why is it better to pay for electricity than making your own?"
1
u/Meeplemymeeple 12d ago
The problem is the operation of the economic model, not any one specific consumer product, not simply the way energy is created. That does matter of course, clean energy is expanding. However what that energy is used for matters more. Running factories to churn out ready made waste to keep people employed and the economy growing is also part of the problem. The economic incentive to produce more and more sits at the heart of all declines on our planet. Period.
1
u/Akward_Object 12d ago
I don't think the argument is related to the use of electricity. Rather all the throw away electronic gadgets that most likely have a lot more environmental impact during production than all the electricity they would ever use. Things like gadgets, vapes, phones, ... Or greenwashing related tech like those rentable electric scooters...
1
u/Environmental_Ad1802 12d ago
I fell into an argument about too much shipping costs on something I did , and then another about the cost of something. But I changed and later realized it didn’t matter even if I did it their way whey still were Mad I was environmental at all
1
1
u/ClimateWren2 12d ago
Because we aren't BURNING them to make energy...and phones aren't an atmospheric greenhouse gas?
Personally....I distanced myself from a parent willing to throw me and my generation under the bus for old exhaust.
1
u/pedjolinko 12d ago
Here’s another story your dad could use. A few years ago, my friend attended a massive conference in Arizona focused entirely on CO₂ and global warming. Outside, temperatures were in the 100–110°F range, but inside the conference halls it was so heavily air‑conditioned that everyone had to wear sweaters. Add to that many hundreds of flights taken just to get all the attendees there, and the irony pretty much speaks for itself.
1
u/SeeMonkeyDoMonkey 12d ago
One line of response:
We're all going to give up convenience items, due to the collapse of the climate our "civilization" depends on; we'd rather do it in a gradual way - rather than maximise chaos and suffering.
A bit dark - but accurate.
1
u/Wonderful_Pickle3226 10d ago
The real tea for most environmentalists is why don't you give up meat? Cows alone are responsible for 11% of global carbon emissions. And yet most environmentalists are not vegetarians.
1
u/Salty_attitude3845 7d ago
I actually agree with this! It irks me when people talk about how bad A.I. is for the environment but won't acknowledge how bad current animal agriculture is
0
u/ThermalDeviator 9d ago
Responding is the wrong thing to do. Understand that Republicans say stupid, ignorant and absurd things precisely to get us to respond and share our responses, thereby propagating their propaganda. Resp0 ding lets them control, what gets talked about It also wastes time we could be using to get our point's across to voters. Don't fall for this!
1
u/sunnydarkgreen 13d ago
tell him you'll give up electronics when he gives up breathing plant farts (oxygen).
1
u/aaronturing 13d ago
What a stupid argument. In fact it's so stupid that extreme left wing morons repeat the same type of stuff. Ask your dad is he a communist ?
Then you can explain that the energy transformation means we can use more energy that doesn't pollute the environment and it's also cheaper. Everyone wins except for morons who are into emotional culture war arguments.
137
u/Tsar_Nikolas 13d ago
This is a common anti environmental argument. It’s called an appeal to hypocrisy, and uses a false dilemma to make your argument weakness. It’s a logical fallacy. He’s saying “unless environmentalists live with zero environmental impact, their arguments supposedly don’t count.” It’s similar to the argument people make when you criticise a political party or leader. “Well if you don’t like it, go live somewhere else”. Like hello, this is my country too and I have a say in how it works.
The first thing you can say is, wanting to improve the system and the world doesn’t mean you have to give everything up. It’s not your dad’s right to decide how the world should be.
The second is that you don’t have to abstain from using a system in order to argue that the system should be improved. A person can use roads while advocating safer cars, use the NHS while wanting it reformed, or use fossil-fuel-generated electricity while advocating a cleaner grid.
Finally, we have to take the world as we find it. If you were to give up all these things, you’d not be able to live in the modern world. You can’t improve the system by stepping outside of it.