4 ms·
> It's somewhat frustrating to see the governor jump to climate change if only for its convenient exculpatory power Eeeeeh. Sure, fair I suppose. Except that
by munk-a 6y ago
> It's somewhat frustrating to see the governor jump to climate change if only for its convenient exculpatory power
Eeeeeh.
Sure, fair I suppose. Except that the US political arena is currently composed of people that want to address climate change and environmental stewardship responsibly and those that deny it's existence while toting snow balls onto the senate floor.
It's fine to reasonably say that California & the feds are underfunding efforts to maintain fire breaks and forest management in the state. It's not fine to say that carbon sequestration will solve everything magically one day - we need to be doing both, addressing excessive carbon generation and looking into carbon sequestration.
Also, as far as I've seen, carbon sequestration isn't really a renewable process - the idea is to lock that carbon outside of the natural cycles, that's a great way to reset things, but it doesn't effect the velocity with which we continue to make the problem worse.
Lastly, we're a pretty rich society - if we can do something about this why don't we. I think most people would be happy to go without the next generation of iPhone if it means solving climate change - maybe we can just slightly slow down the economic engine and produce a more sustainable existence.
- fataliss 6y ago> I think most people would be happy to go without the next generation of iPhone But it's been a while that people are not at the centre of our economy anymore (have they ever been?). The issue is political. Politicians, backed up by economists, sell the dream of ever-increasing growth as a way to maintain peace. It's not reasonable in a finite, and like OP mentioned, chaotic world.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ancarda 6y ago>I think most people would be happy to go without the next generation of iPhone if it means solving climate change Don't you also have to go vegan, stop flying, switch to an EV car, stop using disposable plastic, switch to green electricity, avoid businesses that aren't carbon neutral, consider the environment before you print that email, and so on ... ? The scale of change required is seriously overwhelming and I fear without a solution to that, we aren't going to fix this problem anytime soon :(
- ivalm 6y agoStart small, change one thing.
- conception 6y agoActually you mainly have to just go at the rich and regulatory capture. Carbon and plastic taxes/cap/trade to capture those externalities and most of the problems go away on their own. But then someone might not get another yacht.
- rtx 6y agoI see those same people opposing nuclear, so not sure about their motives.
- gnopgnip 6y agoA carbon tax that covers 100% of the external environmental cost on all goods would mean a substantial change in the way people live. Tautologically, such a change is needed to stop climate change. A change like this would mean gas, international travel, heating oil, meat and some other foods, plastics would be much more expensive. A change like this would be nearly impossible to pass. The good news is a much smaller carbon tax is enough to change some behavior and get much of the benefit. You can start small and go from there.
- AniseAbyss 6y agoUltimately it doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or natural. It doesn't change the facts on the ground governors have to deal with: continued water scarcity and increasing wildfires. But thinking about if California can continue to be habitable for 40 million people is scary.