3 ms·
I think the argument is that, given that climate cycles are natural and not a result of human carbon (etc) emissions, reducing carbon emissions is not a effecti
by a1369209993 6y ago
I think the argument is that, given that climate cycles are natural and not a result of human carbon (etc) emissions, reducing carbon emissions is not a effective way to combat nature, and there's no political will to undertake strategies that would actually be effective. (To be fair, it is actually true that reducing carbon emissions is not a effective way to combat nature; the position of non-stupid advocates is rather that it's the least ineffective method.)
- candiodari 6y agoWell that’s true. Carbon emissions are self-reinforcing. It would take 200%+ emission reduction at this point, as heat itself is increasing co2 release today in various ways. This means reductions can only bring a short delay, they can’t stop global warming. At this point it’s getting warmer mostly because it’s getting warmer.