This doesn't sound absurd:
"The Port calculated that the shoreside power supply will prevent 140 pounds of diesel soot emissions and 1.3 tons of airborne nitrogen oxide emissions for every 10-hour ship call. It will also reduce carbon dioxide by 19.7 tons."
20% of the grid and running all cruise ships off shore power is only the beginning, you are right. But the fact remains most other major cities don't even do that.
Don't let better be the enemy of good. Just because it's not 100% right out of the gate doesn't mean that 20% isn't better than 0%.
I want the marketers to say it's 80% emissions when it's 80% emissions. When it's zero emissions then they can say zero emissions.
Better is not the enemy of good. But lying is still the enemy of trust. We need trust if you want to push policy.
Example; a "zero emissions" plan that actually produces 80% emissions might get funded over a better plan that produces just 60%. Why? They claimed zero!
If you care to show me how it's zero, I'm happy to listen. I'd prefer if the answer is not based on lying because it's "better." For me, actual science is better.
>That's better right?
Not if it could have been better than that but wasn't because someone lied to get their product purchased over a better one.
The better product being selected because it's factually better for the environment; that's better.
I see. You're right, I assumed the implication because of my original comment. It seems I lost the context of the discussion then.
I'm arguing to defend science because I believe claims of zero emissions when in fact they are not hurts progress both economically and through wear on trust in science.
I appreciate the invitation. Maybe next time I'm in the bay.
The vehicle is 20% zero emissions. The cookies are 20% zero fat.
No one is going to make clean energy when they can make money lying about it instead.
We don't accept this absurdity in any other industry.