Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sure, I'm not saying damns have no consequences. I'm saying that it's silly to declare them "not green" because of the existence of environmental consequences because there are consequences to everything we do.

Damns are not a perfect solution, but compared to the ecological costs of coal mining, gas extraction, and burning of Fossil fuels, I feel it's disingenuous to just dismiss them out of hand for not being "green".

The comment wasn’t declaring them to be “not-green” because of the mere existence of environmental consequences. It was doing so because of the large magnitude of those consequences.

There’s probably a good argument to be made that they’re worth it, but the original statement was fine too.

"Not green by default" might have been a better phrasing? They can still be much more green compared to alternatives. "Green" isn't a binary, and that seems to be the crux of both arguments above.

> large magnitude

Large magnitude in proportion to small return.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact