7 ms·

Nature does not match her challenges to our abilities. There’s no reason to expect this to be fair. It’s definitely not the kind of thing where I would engage

Nature does not match her challenges to our abilities. There’s no reason to expect this to be fair. It’s definitely not the kind of thing where I would engage in hand wringing over human stupidity. It sucks and it’s unfair, but it’s the situation we have to deal with.

brink 5y ago
I'm more referring to the nature of the proposed solution as being extreme. Calling for shutdowns greater than 2020 is the sledgehammer to society approach. Are we really so against the wall that we cannot come up with something better than the economically suicidal shutdowns?
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  He's not saying we need to shut down, he's saying we need solutions that are equal to or greater in magnitude than a shutdown. CO2 emissions went down during the early pandemic, but quickly started climbing back towards normal again.[0] In 2020 overall, global emissions fell 6.4%[1]. If we maintained that trajectory, it still wouldn't be enough to stop climate change. [0]https://time.com/5943530/covid-19-co2-emissions-climate-change/ https://time.com/5943530/covid-19-co2-emissions-climate-chan... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/08/carbon-dioxide-levels-pandemic-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/08/carbon-d...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tech-no-logical 5y ago
  in my opinion : yes. we've been coming up with things for 30-40 years now, and emissions are still rising. we've had some kind of climate accord since 1992, and essentially nothing has changed with respect to fossil fuel use. on my side of the pond we've committed to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 as compared to 1990... that's just 9 years, and we are _still_ at 1990 levels or thereabouts, meaning we have done essentially _nothing_ in 30 years. I'd damn well say we're against the wall.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Yes, thats what happens when you ignore the problem for 70 years, chickens come home to rootlst
- bscphil 5y ago
  > But we still have a long way to go to halt the rise, as each year more CO2 piles up in the atmosphere. We ultimately need cuts that are much larger and sustained longer than the COVID-related shutdowns of 2020." "Cuts" means cuts in the release of new CO2, it doesn't mean that this has to be accomplished through shutting down the economy - you misunderstood the statement.
ohazi 5y ago
> but it’s the situation we have to deal with. We're not going to deal with it. We're going to continue partying for another 200 years. Then we're all going to get woozy and stupid. Then the population will crater. I don't think humanity will go away entirely, but I don't see a reason to be optimistic about the next 500 or 1000 years. This is the peak.
- jjulius 5y ago
  Slightly off-topic, slightly tangentially related; you may enjoy Kae Tempest's "The Book of Traps and Lessons".
- Loveaway 5y ago
  How do you know? Humans are probably the most adaptable species on the planet. Not many tropical animals are able to survive in Antartica for example. Maybe we'll get fusion and AI rolling, and we have more energy then we possibly dream of, can de-carbonate the atmosphere and so on. The way I see it it's gonna be all about energy. There are absolutely insane amounts of it everywhere, and all our power generation is like nothing compared to what's going on at planetary, cosmic scales. The question is are gonna be able to tap into it, and make use of it? If so, all our problems will seem silly, but for that to happen we need to keep up the innovation, keep up improving technology, keep the economy running and don't fall into the trap of regressing into a dark age. If we just shut down everything and go back into the woods, we're definitely gonna be at the whim of whatever is going to happen and there will be nothing we can do about it.
  - fallingfrog 5y ago
    I agree. There’s no going back, only forward. We need alternative sources of energy.

brink 5y ago

I'm more referring to the nature of the proposed solution as being extreme. Calling for shutdowns greater than 2020 is the sledgehammer to society approach. Are we really so against the wall that we cannot come up with something better than the economically suicidal shutdowns?

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
He's not saying we need to shut down, he's saying we need solutions that are equal to or greater in magnitude than a shutdown. CO2 emissions went down during the early pandemic, but quickly started climbing back towards normal again.[0] In 2020 overall, global emissions fell 6.4%[1]. If we maintained that trajectory, it still wouldn't be enough to stop climate change. [0]https://time.com/5943530/covid-19-co2-emissions-climate-change/ https://time.com/5943530/covid-19-co2-emissions-climate-chan... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/08/carbon-dioxide-levels-pandemic-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/08/carbon-d...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tech-no-logical 5y ago
in my opinion : yes. we've been coming up with things for 30-40 years now, and emissions are still rising. we've had some kind of climate accord since 1992, and essentially nothing has changed with respect to fossil fuel use. on my side of the pond we've committed to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 as compared to 1990... that's just 9 years, and we are _still_ at 1990 levels or thereabouts, meaning we have done essentially _nothing_ in 30 years. I'd damn well say we're against the wall.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Yes, thats what happens when you ignore the problem for 70 years, chickens come home to rootlst
bscphil 5y ago
> But we still have a long way to go to halt the rise, as each year more CO2 piles up in the atmosphere. We ultimately need cuts that are much larger and sustained longer than the COVID-related shutdowns of 2020." "Cuts" means cuts in the release of new CO2, it doesn't mean that this has to be accomplished through shutting down the economy - you misunderstood the statement.

ohazi 5y ago

> but it’s the situation we have to deal with. We're not going to deal with it. We're going to continue partying for another 200 years. Then we're all going to get woozy and stupid. Then the population will crater. I don't think humanity will go away entirely, but I don't see a reason to be optimistic about the next 500 or 1000 years. This is the peak.

jjulius 5y ago
Slightly off-topic, slightly tangentially related; you may enjoy Kae Tempest's "The Book of Traps and Lessons".
Loveaway 5y ago
How do you know? Humans are probably the most adaptable species on the planet. Not many tropical animals are able to survive in Antartica for example. Maybe we'll get fusion and AI rolling, and we have more energy then we possibly dream of, can de-carbonate the atmosphere and so on. The way I see it it's gonna be all about energy. There are absolutely insane amounts of it everywhere, and all our power generation is like nothing compared to what's going on at planetary, cosmic scales. The question is are gonna be able to tap into it, and make use of it? If so, all our problems will seem silly, but for that to happen we need to keep up the innovation, keep up improving technology, keep the economy running and don't fall into the trap of regressing into a dark age. If we just shut down everything and go back into the woods, we're definitely gonna be at the whim of whatever is going to happen and there will be nothing we can do about it.
- fallingfrog 5y ago
  I agree. There’s no going back, only forward. We need alternative sources of energy.