I was unaware that polling evidence places energy concerns so high on many women's priorities. That's extremely gratifying. Access to an affordable and dependable energy supply is fundamental to human flourishing.
I was disappointed though, that a stray carbon dioxide molecule is still seen as a serious tripping hazard. When the terms 'emissions' and 'carbon' require trigger warnings we are a long way from achieving environmental sanity, the silent killer in the discussion.
I don't think you could spare the time to listen to all that I have to say about how ill-informed our society is concerning energy and pollution. It could take months.
Two things I will say;
communication cannot take place until a common meaning is established for each and every term or concept that we use.
And, When a carbon life form vilifies carbon, it's time to desert the conversation.
One of the issues I often see is that people are coming to the conversation with their own assumptions about meaning. For those pushing a net-zero degrowth message, there is a benefit of vague or no defnitions for key terms. Like the phrase, "Putting a price on pollution" -- it's a clever rhetorical device akin to the loaded question fallacy "when did you stop beating your xyz". People will associate the carbon tax with trying to stop pollution. If you disagree, then you must be for pollution, and only "bad" or "greedy" people would be for pollution. Of importance in Canada, no federal leader has had the courage to say that CO2 is not pollution.
There are only two ways to deal with women, and no one knows what they are. (LOL)
I was unaware that polling evidence places energy concerns so high on many women's priorities. That's extremely gratifying. Access to an affordable and dependable energy supply is fundamental to human flourishing.
I was disappointed though, that a stray carbon dioxide molecule is still seen as a serious tripping hazard. When the terms 'emissions' and 'carbon' require trigger warnings we are a long way from achieving environmental sanity, the silent killer in the discussion.
Thank you for your comments, Garret. You're absolutely right. I would love to hear any suggestions you might have on how to fix the situation. 🙂
I don't think you could spare the time to listen to all that I have to say about how ill-informed our society is concerning energy and pollution. It could take months.
Two things I will say;
communication cannot take place until a common meaning is established for each and every term or concept that we use.
And, When a carbon life form vilifies carbon, it's time to desert the conversation.
One of the issues I often see is that people are coming to the conversation with their own assumptions about meaning. For those pushing a net-zero degrowth message, there is a benefit of vague or no defnitions for key terms. Like the phrase, "Putting a price on pollution" -- it's a clever rhetorical device akin to the loaded question fallacy "when did you stop beating your xyz". People will associate the carbon tax with trying to stop pollution. If you disagree, then you must be for pollution, and only "bad" or "greedy" people would be for pollution. Of importance in Canada, no federal leader has had the courage to say that CO2 is not pollution.
When our leaders know, but fear admitting publicly that CO2 is the elixir of life, you can see that the enemy has captured the moral high ground.
BTW, thanks for continuing to fight for sanity.