[awakeasleep]

Hey, I know this is silly because the fund isn't event taking these actions explicitly for environmental reasons, BUT if they were, your comment would be a great example of an Internet debate fallacy that I try and fight.

If an entity is doing something 'bad', reducing the scope or amount of that behavior is neither hypocritical nor pointless. It doesn't matter if it's a big company that pollutes, or an individual trying to reduce a bad habit. Movement in the right direction is an essential part of things getting better.

[msandford]

According to that standard then if you got rich selling illegal drugs so long as you then start doing "good" things with your illicit gains after that, nobody can criticize you? Sure, I guess...

[kirrent]

Of course they can criticize you for selling illegal drugs in the same way you can criticize Norway for getting rich off oil. He's saying that praising that person for doing something like giving money to charity or anti-drug efforts isn't completely inconsistent.

I disagree that it can't be hypocritical. If Norway was doing this for environmental reasons I think it'd be quite hypocritical. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do though.

[barney54]

If these are good actions, then do more. What's the point of half measures?

[nsm]

Relevant read https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

[slapresta]

Well, for one, they make about 50% of full measures, give or take.