with Google’s assault on Invidious leaving it inoperable, consider watching this video with FreeTube, a nifty open source program that lets you watch youtube videos privately!

  • ProdigalFrogOPEnglish
    7•16 hours ago

    I think you’re right that the blade problem is mostly used in the context of right-wingers trying to tarnish and muddy Wind’s image, but I don’t see it as particularly negative for media to be made that highlights the fact that they could eventually become biodegradable. IMO it puts a cap on any right-wing jab by having an easily linkable response that effectively says “Well, that claim will soon be moot anyway.” And it can again be emphasized that in proportion, it’s not a problem to begin with.

    But also, bear in mind this is a Solarpunk community, and we’re pretty into reducing as much waste as possible while putting up as much alternative energy as possible, so the fact that even that small amount of waste can be eliminated is something we would appreciate knowing.

    • @TropicalDingdong
      -1•14 hours ago

      The problem is that it validates the claim to offer a “solution” (it isn’t) to the “problem” (it isn’t). It’s counter productive to validate the claim by offering this retort. It’s also not even the second time I’ve seen this being trotted out. It’s at least the third, maybe fourth.

      I’d be more than happy with seeing these things repurposed into something useful. If we’re in a position where windmill blades are littering the landscape because we have a preponderance of cheap/ free/ non polluting energy, that’s a good thing.

      • @[email protected]
        1•9 hours ago

        Assuming this is a non-issue like you say, I still don’t see why that makes this a problem?

        It is actually problematic to spend time, effort, and other people’s attention and understanding making weird defensive claims to non issues.

        Why? This makes it seem like we can only concentrate on one issue at a time and that by making biodegradable blades we’re somehow stopping something more ‘worthwhile’ from happening? We can do multiple things at once. Even if this makes only a minor difference, I still don’t see why that’s a bad thing? Surely any attempt to improve things is a good thing, no?

        • @TropicalDingdong
          1•1 minute ago

          You are validating bad faith criticisms by engaging with them. You give them substance by addressing them. These are the exact kinds of things that the fossil fuel industry has been funding for literally decades to create confusion/ uncertainty around renewables. By engaging with and sharing content like this, you are doing their work for them. By asking and then answering non-issues like this, it validates the idea that there was a problem with renewables to begin with. Content like this is the result of 80 years of fossil fuel company psyops campaigns.

          On Thursday, House Democrats will look into what they describe as the oil industry’s decades of disinformation and misrepresentation to delay climate action. They have called executives from Exxon Mobil, BP America, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil to testify. The meeting, Democrats say, is modeled on a historic hearing more than 25 years ago that held the tobacco industry to account for misleading the public about the harmful effects of smoking.

          Two names likely to come up at the hearing are Charles and David Koch, the conservative petrochemical magnates. They have poured millions of dollars into efforts to discredit the science of climate change. The brothers have given over $145 million to climate-change-denying think tanks and advocacy groups between 1997 and 2018. The Kochs were joined in their efforts by Exxon, which has given nearly $37 million over the same time to spread climate misinformation.

          A senior Exxon lobbyist in Washington was caught on tape in June describing the company’s campaign to cloud the science. “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes,” said Keith McCoy in a sting operation by Greenpeace U.K. “Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”

          The primary goal of these campaigns is to create confusion/ uncertainty; to elevate non-issues into concerns: precisely what this content does.