3 ms·
> why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem We can, and we are. That's why I do what I do. You're absolutely right, it is much cheaper to avert c
by johnmorrison 7y ago
> why can't we spend less than that to avoid the problem
We can, and we are. That's why I do what I do.
You're absolutely right, it is much cheaper to avert climate change than deal with the consequences. It's also necessary to transition to sustainable energy eventually because we will run out of fossil fuels regardless of what happens with the climate.
The solutions to climate change are being worked on right now by many talented people around the world. I'm confident we will reach the IPCC SR15 1.5 degree Celsius goals.
- ncmncm 7y agoWe aren't, and we won't. Coal and oil usage are still increasing, and the US is increasing its subsidy for them. Russia, China, and India are still building new coal-fired power plants. Fascist representation in governments is increasing worldwide. Action is falling far short of what would be needed to cap temperature rise, and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them.
- johnmorrison 7y ago> Any developments in fission could only have substantial effect decades after events will overtake them. We only need 2 decades to fix the energy part of emissions, and the IPCC has given us 3. > and there is no motion toward greater enforcement. Enforcement isn't needed to get to net zero emissions. It's profitable long term to swap to clean energy and electrified vehicles and appliances, they're more efficient. Also fossil fuel abundance will eventually drop to the point where prices rise. Free markets will solve our emissions problem, I'm not sure why you are worried about enforcement or the type of governments when it comes to this.