3 ms·
True or not, even if all nations of the world decided today to make honest attempts to reduce emissions, it wouldn't happen within 18 months. So if the timeline
by Mountain_Skies 7y ago
True or not, even if all nations of the world decided today to make honest attempts to reduce emissions, it wouldn't happen within 18 months. So if the timeline is that short, what's the point of doing anything. We're doomed. If it's not truly that short, it'll be another prediction that fails to come true and gives further ammunition to those who don't believe climate change is happening or believe the danger to be overblown. Either way, such pronouncements don't seem to be helpful in achieving the ultimate goal of stopping or controlling climate change.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wbeckler 7y agoPlease read the article. That's not what it's saying at all.
- _ph_ 7y agoYou misunderstood the article. It is not that we have to cut emission by 50% within the next 18 months. But we have to finally start acting within this timeframes and not with promises but with clear commitments to change things significantly. We are not doomed (yet). We still can prevent the worst. But we have to act NOW.
- cagenut 7y agoThis is a problem of hundreds of gigatons of a gas affecting billions of people over the course of decades across the entire planet. When you wrap your brain around that scale and mechanism you simply cannot apply a notion of "too late" to a set of scalar function that massive. That is a false-dichotomy, or more accurately a depressive form of "splitting".