4 ms·

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. Ar

by 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.

by brink 5y ago

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.