|
|
|
|
|
by ajross
2597 days ago
|
|
What does "arguing position 1" amount to, though? Your phrasing here seems to be saying that you're throwing up your hands and giving up. But that's not an "argument". My guess is that you're actually arguing for inaction, that you're opposed to regulation, and that you're taking your stand with all the people with position 2. If so... why are you surprised to be forced to defend their wrongheadedness? |
|
Arguing position 1 amounts to taking an interest in and investing in efforts that will allow the world to progress along its current trajectory without CO2-emitting power sources.
"... why are you surprised to be forced to defend their wrongheadedness?" - I'm not... I just avoid having conversations with folks that would jump to this conclusion without hearing my point of view.
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08... [2]http://energy.mit.edu/news/mit-releases-interdisciplinary-st...