[fao_]

> Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.

Personally I feel that splitting up interests that are inherently to do with climate change and ecology into individual issues is detrimental. However, you're probably right that capitalism is inefficient and utterly ineffective at large scale projects, and that splitting everything into isolated issues that cannot be seen to lead to anything bigger is a more "efficient" way to solve the general problem under capitalism, sure.

[marcosdumay]

This is not artificially splitting anything up.

Mines contamination has no relation at all with climate change. Birds death due to impact with windmills have nothing to do with climate change.

It's lumping those things up that is artificial. And if you add noise to your goal, don't be surprised when people start to question if your actions actually lead to your stated goals or if you have a hidden agenda... because you do have a hidden agenda. It's hidden because of bad communication, but people can't tell the difference.

[boppo1]

The guy you're talking to views the world through a lens of 'capitalism vs [utopian vision]', capitalism being everything wrong with status-quo economics. Don't waste your time suggesting practicalities.