Probably. I still find a lot of people here on Lemmy (and the other fuck you spez platform before) that are very very convinced we need to reroute a substantial amount of our effort into building nuclear reactors as renewables can never ever sustain everything and in general there is no storage.
But you are right in general.
People will always find a reason to smash their heads, however they call it. All hail to the Allied Atheist Alliance my fellow 🦦
2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.
Also there is a chance that birds killed by cats windturbines were already weak and soon to die.
Don’t take the above sentence seriously. It’s just to show that arguments that seem nice might not hold their value at second glance.
In comparison with the other issues we have, the bird Windturbine one is a non-issue. However, it gets thrown in the ring over and over again, achieving exactly what the people persuing it want: distraction. It’s the same with nuclear, it’s the same with “ but we can’t store the energy“. A lot of decoys to slow down the process while we already have everything we need to take on the problem. Please people, don’t take the bait, focus on implementing the solution.
Uhm… 2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.
Yeah… bird smashers… say, do you have a cat?
Problem is: who is in charge to write down the thing that is being voted for. E.g. “we need to protect the children” will get my yes vote. However, that is very unspecific and the specific thing could be “we are scanning every text message and sent file on every of your devices to compare that with child sexual abuse images as we need to protect the children”. I wouldn’t vote for that. So, whoever can frame the question that is beeing asked still directs what is happening.
I support this proposal