4 ms·

Isn't it realistically way too late for (ideologically appealing, I understand) lifestyle changes to solve anything? De-growth won't save you from heatwaves or

Isn't it realistically way too late for (ideologically appealing, I understand) lifestyle changes to solve anything? De-growth won't save you from heatwaves or rising sea levels. Mitigation at this point would probably involve extensive dam systems, nuclear reactors and at worst gambling with geoengineering.

esotericn 7y ago
Both are required.
- frostburg 7y ago
  It's hard to build the dams, reactors, geodesic domes and whatever else without more mining, concrete plants, energy intensive logistics and transports, etc. It doesn't seem possible to do both things without failing at both with terrible consequences.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Far less of that would be required if we used less energy, and it's additive. Eating beefburgers, flying Australia <-> Europe for holidays, driving a Hummer, using plastic for everything, and so on and so forth, just isn't necessary. My street has twice the number of cars it did when I was younger. The idea that "terrible consequences" will come about from people taking the piss a bit less is really very silly. It makes me think of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch but inverted (when I were young, we had all the things...)
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Adding insulation to your home, riding your bike for short trips, not taking that vacation across the ocean, and eating less beef doesn't stop you from building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe.
dsq 7y ago
Those nations possessing a sufficient pool of well trained nuclear engineering talent will be those most likely to survive the coming climatic and geopolitical extremes.
kaybe 7y ago
We can always get more and longer heatwaves and higher sea levels. It might be more than normal now, but if we don't stop it's only going to get worse. If we stop now and find a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere fast enough we might even have a chance to go back to the old normal, but we have to act fast. Please help to push for it!

esotericn 7y ago

Both are required.

frostburg 7y ago
It's hard to build the dams, reactors, geodesic domes and whatever else without more mining, concrete plants, energy intensive logistics and transports, etc. It doesn't seem possible to do both things without failing at both with terrible consequences.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Far less of that would be required if we used less energy, and it's additive. Eating beefburgers, flying Australia <-> Europe for holidays, driving a Hummer, using plastic for everything, and so on and so forth, just isn't necessary. My street has twice the number of cars it did when I was younger. The idea that "terrible consequences" will come about from people taking the piss a bit less is really very silly. It makes me think of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch but inverted (when I were young, we had all the things...)
- adrianN 7y ago
  Adding insulation to your home, riding your bike for short trips, not taking that vacation across the ocean, and eating less beef doesn't stop you from building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe.

dsq 7y ago

Those nations possessing a sufficient pool of well trained nuclear engineering talent will be those most likely to survive the coming climatic and geopolitical extremes.

kaybe 7y ago

We can always get more and longer heatwaves and higher sea levels. It might be more than normal now, but if we don't stop it's only going to get worse. If we stop now and find a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere fast enough we might even have a chance to go back to the old normal, but we have to act fast. Please help to push for it!