It's never meaningless to argue, although you may decide to give up arguing with a particular person - oh, what's the use!Yiuel wrote: But I am not that kind of guy, and I know that whatever I want to do, it will have effects on Nature. 'Cause I'm Part ot I. My vision of green is "sustainability" : not stoping doing things, but doing things in a way that you, and your children, will be able to do things for a long long time. Food means crops, crops means fields. But we can be efficient, and we can make things so that it does not destroy more of what else can be saved.
But this might be pretty meaningless to argue.
What you said is completely right (in my view), and reinforces my idea that you are the right kind of guy, slight ideological differences aside.
But, anyway, hydroelectricity from from the flatlands has a much greater destructive potential than hydroelectricity from a canyon. I am not the sort of guy who wants everything to be untouched everywhere, and arguing against hydroelectricity in Quebec does not imply this in any way. But I am the sort of guy who wants to leave some things ubtouched somewhere, and at the rate wilderness is vanishing everywhere, it is well worth a hard look at any project that would destroy yet another huge chunk of it. Maybe its worth it, maybe not, but calling it "green" before careful weighing of costs and benefits is premature. "Green" doesn't just mean clean, it means responsible.
