If the point is a good one, why should we care where it comes from? I don’t see you disagreeing with the premise - only making blind assumptions about the source.
Of course I disagree with the message, damaging infrastructure isn’t going make them replace it with green alternatives it’s going to suck resources from everything else and cause huge extra energy use which translates directly into ecological damage - adding to whatever was caused by the initial spills and fires related to the sabotage.
If you’re going to try and convince people to throw their life away attacking oil and gas facilities then why not convince them to throw it away learning about and advocating for better alternatives? The hard truth is we can burn and explode our way out of the current problems no matter how much we want to.
Why would worse infrastructure be built at greater cost, and where have I tried to convince people to do this kind of thing? I’m simply saying if the outcome is good, I don’t particularly care who pushes it.
If the point is a good one, why should we care where it comes from? I don’t see you disagreeing with the premise - only making blind assumptions about the source.
Of course I disagree with the message, damaging infrastructure isn’t going make them replace it with green alternatives it’s going to suck resources from everything else and cause huge extra energy use which translates directly into ecological damage - adding to whatever was caused by the initial spills and fires related to the sabotage.
If you’re going to try and convince people to throw their life away attacking oil and gas facilities then why not convince them to throw it away learning about and advocating for better alternatives? The hard truth is we can burn and explode our way out of the current problems no matter how much we want to.
Why would worse infrastructure be built at greater cost, and where have I tried to convince people to do this kind of thing? I’m simply saying if the outcome is good, I don’t particularly care who pushes it.