11 ms·

Another decade without embracing nuclear energy. Maybe we can shame people so they don’t fly. that could save almost 1%. Not to worry, we’ve got some great g

Another decade without embracing nuclear energy. Maybe we can shame people so they don’t fly. that could save almost 1%. Not to worry, we’ve got some great goals for 2050. After watching how Coronavirus played out earlier this year, I really doubt if we’re going to address climate change in a significant way. That happened over a few months and many people still don’t get it. Plan for the inevitable.

frankbreetz 6y ago
I wouldn't say it is inenvitable. It has been on some presidential platforms since at least 2000 with Al Gore,although noone with an acceptable platform has ever been elected.More and more people are realizing the issue, as genZ and millennials become the majority I think change is more likely then not.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  The USA emits about 15% of global CO2 [1]. Even if it adopted highly aggressive emissions mitigation and became carbon-neutral within a few years, the rest of the world's major emitters (China, India, Russia, etc.) would have to curb their own emissions similarly aggressively for it to make a meaningful global difference. How long until civilization as a whole becomes carbon-neutral? What would happen if all future emissions were magically cancelled? Even in that unrealistic scenario, climate change would continue for decades due to the damage we've already done, before stabilizing at a higher temperature than before we started raising atmospheric CO2 levels [2]. It's absolutely worth fighting for environmentally conscious platforms, but it's also a fact that no one country will realistically put a dent in the problem without widespread international cooperation. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... [2] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Now that solar and wind are unmistakeably cheaper than coal, it is only active corruption that keeps coal capacity being built out. Even corrupt money cares about costs and lost profits, so that should be a short term effect. Question remaining is whether global civ will collapse first.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    We actually need to be aggressively carbon negative in order to remove excess co2 and/or other greenhouse gases so we don't cook in the near future. Carbon neutral would mean that the heating up will remain at current rate.

frankbreetz 6y ago

I wouldn't say it is inenvitable. It has been on some presidential platforms since at least 2000 with Al Gore,although noone with an acceptable platform has ever been elected.More and more people are realizing the issue, as genZ and millennials become the majority I think change is more likely then not.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
The USA emits about 15% of global CO2 [1]. Even if it adopted highly aggressive emissions mitigation and became carbon-neutral within a few years, the rest of the world's major emitters (China, India, Russia, etc.) would have to curb their own emissions similarly aggressively for it to make a meaningful global difference. How long until civilization as a whole becomes carbon-neutral? What would happen if all future emissions were magically cancelled? Even in that unrealistic scenario, climate change would continue for decades due to the damage we've already done, before stabilizing at a higher temperature than before we started raising atmospheric CO2 levels [2]. It's absolutely worth fighting for environmentally conscious platforms, but it's also a fact that no one country will realistically put a dent in the problem without widespread international cooperation. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... [2] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Now that solar and wind are unmistakeably cheaper than coal, it is only active corruption that keeps coal capacity being built out. Even corrupt money cares about costs and lost profits, so that should be a short term effect. Question remaining is whether global civ will collapse first.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  We actually need to be aggressively carbon negative in order to remove excess co2 and/or other greenhouse gases so we don't cook in the near future. Carbon neutral would mean that the heating up will remain at current rate.