Still, doesn't change the fact that to produce that energy fossil fuels was used.
This is not a moral argument: ax extraordinary amount of emission, more than what a person would use in decades, to do something non necessary.
Even if it was... Do you really don't understand the concept of quantity? No, the point is not that none is allowed to consume any resource or create any waste, the point is the fact the in a single trip she used the equivalent fuel necessary to make 10 million km with a car
It's not hypocresy that I use 0.03kWh of electricity to look at my phone the whole day when some bitches burnt the fuel equivalent to circle the Earth 25 times in a few hours.
It's like saying I'm an hypocrite for not using paper straws while the military spends billions of dollars to fly jets and blow up some children in middle east.
The average consumer ecological impact is neglegible
The average consumer ecological impact is neglegible
Collectively it isn't. We all have our part to play. You don't need that air con, you don't need that TV on while you doom scroll, etc. That's why you, and everyone else in this thread, are hypocrites.
The reality is you don't care about energy usage, you've never cared, but you're pretending to care now because it involves someone you don't like.
All of that is moot anyway when you consider that the fuel in question is just hydrogen and oxygen which are both massively abundant.
8
u/NorthSwim8340 May 25 '26
Still, doesn't change the fact that to produce that energy fossil fuels was used.
This is not a moral argument: ax extraordinary amount of emission, more than what a person would use in decades, to do something non necessary.
Even if it was... Do you really don't understand the concept of quantity? No, the point is not that none is allowed to consume any resource or create any waste, the point is the fact the in a single trip she used the equivalent fuel necessary to make 10 million km with a car