![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Truly, all debunking is a waste of time
May. 31st, 2022 11:46 amHere’s the latest example:
https://www.wired.com/story/technology-policy-thinkwashing/
Here is the definition: “thinkwashing, a combination of willful ignorance of existing knowledge, policy perfectionism, and an all-or-nothing position on the role of technology in society.”
Example one — direct carbon capture plants, using Bill Gates something or other as an example. It’s a little convoluted, but she _appears_ to be saying, yes, they are not the be all end all, but no, they are not a totally purposeless waste of time, so yes, we should be focusing energy / resources on these.
Example two — electric cars. Someone else is quoted reframing away from car replacement to mobility / transit, and then encouraging people to walk / bike / use public transit. Cummins says:
“For example, vehicles will remain important for essential services, including fire trucks and ambulances. Finding ways to replace gas engines with electric or hydrogen alternatives still holds immense value, but it’s still a few steps down the triaged to-do list.”
First off, the hydrogen thing is a _terrible_ idea, so pointing at that is an example of thinkwashing. It’s not a Not Perfect idea. It’s a _terrible_ _short term_ global warming contributor unless we can control leaks and if you know anything about hydrogen, you know leaks are a sure thing.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2022/03/07/hydrogen-climate-solution-leaks-must-be-tackled
EDF is _deeply flawed_, but there isn’t any obvious reason to think they are making this particular risk up.
Even if you _do_ think EDF is making all this shit up, it’s not like hydrogen had a lot of environmental community fans anyway:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0891-0
But let’s go backwards to that encouraging people to walk / bike / use public transit. I love this idea!
Also, I’ve been pushing this idea for a …. while now. It’s not going to happen as a dominant replacement for cars. It just isn’t.
This is a terrible, terrible piece of writing. The name — thinkwashing — is not awesome. But the examples chosen are actively bad, even if the structure were okay. Analysis paralysis and hopelessness are very, very real cognitive issues that get in the way of adaptation and innovation. This piece does nothing to help with any of that, however, and the examples suggested are actively horrible on every level.
(ETA: Electric cars are taking off nicely and are a great drop-in replacement so that people to not perceive their lives becoming materially worse a as a result of living their values. I know that some people are pretty committed to enjoying their misery as part of living their values and I fully support them continuing to do so. It’s about 20% of the population that is inclined this way, albeit wildly overrepresented in my friend / kin group. I believe we need a lot more people to do climate friendlier things than that 20%, so I’m looking to help people live their values while also living a really pretty nice life.)
https://www.wired.com/story/technology-policy-thinkwashing/
Here is the definition: “thinkwashing, a combination of willful ignorance of existing knowledge, policy perfectionism, and an all-or-nothing position on the role of technology in society.”
Example one — direct carbon capture plants, using Bill Gates something or other as an example. It’s a little convoluted, but she _appears_ to be saying, yes, they are not the be all end all, but no, they are not a totally purposeless waste of time, so yes, we should be focusing energy / resources on these.
Example two — electric cars. Someone else is quoted reframing away from car replacement to mobility / transit, and then encouraging people to walk / bike / use public transit. Cummins says:
“For example, vehicles will remain important for essential services, including fire trucks and ambulances. Finding ways to replace gas engines with electric or hydrogen alternatives still holds immense value, but it’s still a few steps down the triaged to-do list.”
First off, the hydrogen thing is a _terrible_ idea, so pointing at that is an example of thinkwashing. It’s not a Not Perfect idea. It’s a _terrible_ _short term_ global warming contributor unless we can control leaks and if you know anything about hydrogen, you know leaks are a sure thing.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2022/03/07/hydrogen-climate-solution-leaks-must-be-tackled
EDF is _deeply flawed_, but there isn’t any obvious reason to think they are making this particular risk up.
Even if you _do_ think EDF is making all this shit up, it’s not like hydrogen had a lot of environmental community fans anyway:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0891-0
But let’s go backwards to that encouraging people to walk / bike / use public transit. I love this idea!
Also, I’ve been pushing this idea for a …. while now. It’s not going to happen as a dominant replacement for cars. It just isn’t.
This is a terrible, terrible piece of writing. The name — thinkwashing — is not awesome. But the examples chosen are actively bad, even if the structure were okay. Analysis paralysis and hopelessness are very, very real cognitive issues that get in the way of adaptation and innovation. This piece does nothing to help with any of that, however, and the examples suggested are actively horrible on every level.
(ETA: Electric cars are taking off nicely and are a great drop-in replacement so that people to not perceive their lives becoming materially worse a as a result of living their values. I know that some people are pretty committed to enjoying their misery as part of living their values and I fully support them continuing to do so. It’s about 20% of the population that is inclined this way, albeit wildly overrepresented in my friend / kin group. I believe we need a lot more people to do climate friendlier things than that 20%, so I’m looking to help people live their values while also living a really pretty nice life.)