3 ms·

I'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 6y ago
  If 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 6y 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 6y ago
      I'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 6y ago
        I was talking about humanity as a whole, that's the "team" I'm worried about.