Not always..it's like people who say they hate cars and commuting but drive to work every day because there isn't an alternative like trains or busses, or it is too far to walk or ride a bike. They use the existing technology-and if they are that adamant about a better alternative, they should become activists. I don't mean like b****ing about things on facebook-that isn't activism and I am not the first one to say it-but actually going out and trying to move things forward by influencing others to support the alternatives.
So it would be hypocritical to just gripe about something and never do anything to change it and go right ahead doing the 'something,' whatever it is, but I wouldn't call it hypocritical to do that 'something' while actively trying to change it to the better alternative ('better' sometimes/often being subjective.)
Hypocrisy is a pretty common accusation nowadays...there are a couple of classic examples, like parents who smoke trying to tell their kids not to, or politicians moralizing and then doing the very things they demand others not for moral reasons. But even then there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that have an impact on whether or not the behavior is hypocritical...in the smoking example, the smoking parent may understand addiction all too well and can't overcome it, so is trying to help a child avoid it. I can't think of extenuating circumstances for a politician who demands a standard of morality for others that he or she violates him or herself, though.
I would say it would be more hypocritical in the context of climate change for someone to demand others be required to use alternative energy sources-like solar-while not using it themselves.
So like everything it is more nuanced than it would seem most of us would like to allow, but in the context of what you are asking, yes, it can be hypocritical to blame technology but still use it if there are other options, especially those technologies that are more efficient.
Who blames technology?
You have a weird understanding of what 'greenies' stand for.
If anything, it is 'conservatives' like yourself who hate technological innovation: you oppose any form of green energy in much the same way that backward anti-progressives opposed the steam train and the motor vehicle when those were first introduced.
No. What's hypocritical is people with no training, education, or research experience in climatology deciding that climatologists must be wrong and doing so on the basis of the limited understanding they cobbled together from internet sites and blogs.
We all use technology, that doesn't mean it's perfect, or there aren't better ways of doing things.
If you use your car, is it hypocritical to criticize the brakes if they're bad? Should you just keep using the car anyway until you get in an accident?
The "greenies" that you refer to (whoever they are) think that it's smart to fix the car, you apparently think it's more prudent to run off the road.
We at least use it sensibly unlike you
