4 ms·
Ok, then what is the baseline for comparison aka where we are vs where we should be? If the goal/definition is concrete, then we can plan better and understand
by caseysoftware 5y ago
Ok, then what is the baseline for comparison aka where we are vs where we should be?
If the goal/definition is concrete, then we can plan better and understand what is "enough" once we're caught up.
- gbrown 5y agoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make or if you're objecting to anything in particular, but being global carbon negative seems like a good start.
- caseysoftware 5y agoIf you're calling for action then we need to have clear metrics, goals, and standards that we can prioritize, plan for, evaluate decisions against, and measure the results against. Thank you for adding one. Alternatively, if you're simply putting out a Vision to inspire enthusiasm or incite fear, then "we're behind" is sufficient and doesn't require anything more because at best, it's the "race to the moon" and at worst, it's the "missile gap."
- gbrown 5y ago> If you're calling for action I mean, I guess I am, but really I'm mostly relaying my understanding of the scientific consensus. I didn't make my comment in some sort of vacuum where readers are supposed to understand the last few decades of climate science just from my comment...
- caseysoftware 5y agoI've been reading reports and analysis since the Kyoto Protocols. The most fascinating things since that time is that we (the US) were behind in those requirements but significantly ahead of everyone else. The Paris Agreement is roughly the same so far too. In a situation where "we're behind" and "we're ahead" are both accurate statements point to a significant problem in the approach. You choosing one of them exclusively means you're playing for "your team" instead of looking at reality of the situation which is neither useful nor honest.
- gbrown 5y agoI was talking about humanity as a whole, that's the "team" I'm worried about.