4 ms·
No, we should have started going carbon neutral in the 1980's when the science case for precautionary was solid. It is only given that carbon industry got us t
by SiempreViernes 8y ago
No, we should have started going carbon neutral in the 1980's when the science case for precautionary was solid.
It is only given that carbon industry got us to ignore the dangers for more than thirty years that we now are so desperate to keep inside the carbon budget that even very inefficient solutions like carbon capture are seriously being considered.
- dotancohen 8y agoThe best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- FreeFull 8y agoSpeaking of trees, massive reforestation could be one way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. As a bonus, you end up with a lot of lumber you can use for things like buildings.
- dotancohen 8y agoMy country has a holiday where the children plant trees every year.
- schoen 8y agoMaybe there could be a holiday where children and adults plant trees every month or every week!
- benj111 8y agoI'm not sure its reasonable to require such a massive upheaval as a precaution. Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? I agree we should have moved earlier, and we should be moving faster though.
- moosey 8y ago> Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? This is a problem with how the media reports science, not science itself. It's why so many people believe that scientists thought we were going to have an ice age 30 years ago: awful reporting. And back then, the upheaval wouldn't have been nearly as massive. There was less 'wealth' (read as 'carbon usage') and fewer people. It's a real pity.
- benj111 8y agoIt's bad reporting in the sense of, it's only one study, but if you follow the precautionary principle it surely becomes logical to ban, then investigate further?
- SiempreViernes 8y agoIt is certainly cheaper to stop smoking than cure lung cancer, if that is what you mean.
- benj111 8y agoWhat I mean is should we be banning smoking on the basis of one study? If a study does show a link then you repeat it, get more data, work out the extent of the problem. Then you have the info to make decent public policy. And banning smoking something that's fairly easy to do, that isn't spending billions of $s of public funds, telling people they can't fly,drive,eat meat. And we still havent banned smoking.
- lozenge 8y ago“present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." Exxon's senior scientist, 1978. "Victory will be achieved when: (a)Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom" ... (e) Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality" (American Petroleum Institute memo, 1998) “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (B&W tobacco company 1969). https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Th...
- jamesblonde 8y agoNo idea why you're being downvoted. I think everything you said is supported by strong evidence.