3 ms·
Yeah exactly. That is the level of commitment needed to stay below 2 degrees of warming. The authors of that report worked backward from the goal of staying bel
by Glench 6y ago
Yeah exactly. That is the level of commitment needed to stay below 2 degrees of warming. The authors of that report worked backward from the goal of staying below 2 degrees and said, "what needs to happen in what timeframe to make that happen?" They found that if we started decades ago we wouldn't need a WWII-level of effort but since we waited so long we now have to move incredibly fast to electrify everything.
But the good news is that we can move that fast! We now know exactly what needs to happen (electrify everything) and in what timeframe (2035) to stay below 2 degrees and doing that will not only solve climate change but also create jobs, save us money, make us healthier, and improve our quality of life.
- missedthecue 6y agoI just mean that it's a disingenuous way to say you're "creating jobs". Any mass government investment will create demand for labor, whether it's a massive investment in renewables, or in oil exploration, or in waging war, or anything else. It's not specific to green energy
- matsemann 6y agoNote that many dismiss climate goals because of "costing jobs". Like, "they will shut down our coal plant and hundreds will lose their job". So in that regard it's useful to point out that no, it will most likely be a net positive.