• woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The event itself must have a lot carbon footprint.

    Same is true for almost every form of entertainment but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the truly big polluters.

    • nal@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sources of entertainment have - by definition - more viewers and attention than Exxon’s office building.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sources of entertainment have - by definition - more viewers and attention than Exxon’s office building.

        I always find it odd when people claim that something is by definition. Whose definition?

        Anyway, this event is promoting cycling and disrupting a cycling event does nothing to help further promoting any form of cycling.

    • wasp
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear this a lot, that “it’s not worth doing anything because of <insert reason here>”, or “well, the solution is not perfect so why bother?”.

      Any improvement is better than nothing. If no one ever changes, nothing will ever change. Just because someone else is being worse, it doesn’t excuse you from being bad.

      So yes, it’s a drop in the ocean, but at least it’s something. Little drops add up, and they make it harder for the real polluters to justify/excuse their actions.