> The existence of existing harmful norms does not, ex ante, justify introducing additional harmful norms

The point isn't to justify anything.

It's to put things into perspective, and give people a more informed and holistic point of view, and then to ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of more information. There's nothing bad about that. In fact it's a good thing.

Especially in a world where people are so easily misled by others who cherrypick unexceptional statistics and then intentionally present them as exceptional in order to generate outrage, retweets, clicks, whatever.

It's a combination of argument from analogy and reductio ad absurdum. It's not a fallacy. You're free to dispute the validity of the analogy, or you can dispute the absurdity, which you did, by confirming that you would indeed love carbon receipts for everything.

selective outrage, on the other hand, already has a name.

What's the goal of complaining about it though? What's more likely, you persuade people to stop all of these habits that use electricity that burns carbon, or you convert the electricity supply to renewables?

But is fairness between carbon uses justified? Or we cut the line at some point.

> Someone needs to name this fallacy.

Whataboutism?

Considering that especially leftists have spent literal decades hating on vegans for telling them about their individual footprint, there is no real fallacy here.

AI haters have somehow discovered personal responsibility. Awesome. They've never ever applied that to anything else they PERSONALLY do, though. It's only things others do. For any personal choices, suddenly it's all the governments fault or the corporations fault. No personal responsibility to be seen.

My 5-ish years of veganism have easily made up for a life time of prompting. Yet, I still would never generate video or images in part because of their impact.

How many of you non-vegan AI haters are going to be vegan now?