4 ms·
With temperatures hardly going above zero for five months each year and easily reaching -40C in some parts, I doubt many people would call it home at all withou
by Udik 6y ago
With temperatures hardly going above zero for five months each year and easily reaching -40C in some parts, I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels.
There are certainly better ways to produce the energy we need, and I can only hope we'll find them soon; but let's not forget how much we owe to fossil fuels: probably most people on earth owe their very existence to them; discounting them just as a bad and shortsighted idea isn't really a fair assessment.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels. Is uninhabited land inherently a bad thing?
- Udik 6y agoNot at all. Now just go and tell the Alaskans that they can move out because you don't think that making their land uninhabited is "inherently a bad thing".
- ceejayoz 6y agoPeople moved en masse out of the Rust Belt when that economy changed. Parts of Alaska will be the same as we move away from fossil fuels.
- Udik 6y agoThen if it's fine I don't see the problem of "setting your kitchen on fire" for a century or so. When it's over you can always move and return the land to its uninhabited state. Right?
- ceejayoz 6y ago1. To extend the metaphor a bit, the risk with climate change is burning down the entire neighborhood. 2. You can't really put the carbon back that easily.