4 ms·

Or we could not try the impossible task of convincing people to lower their carbon footprint and instead invest in sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineeri

Or we could not try the impossible task of convincing people to lower their carbon footprint and instead invest in sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineering to eliminate the climate change problem. Austerity will not get us out of this hole.

IneffablePigeon 5y ago
Pour qué no los dos? I mostly agree in the long term, but in some ways analogously to the pandemic strategy of short term mitigation whilst long term solutions are put in place, I see few downsides to trying to stem the flow now by altering behaviour, in order to give us more time to fix the issue properly. There's also a sliding scale - not all things people can do to reduce their footprint are really "austerity" but rather alternatives with a different set of tradeoffs. A sideways move that requires a culture shift. I don't mean this to come across as an attack - I don't know your motivations and I'm guilty of this personally - but IMO most people I talk to who argue your position tend to be doing it as much as a rationalisation of their own behaviour than as a position they've come to from first principles.
- garmaine 5y ago
  On the moral side, because austerity cuts standard of living worldwide and will drive billions back into poverty traps. On the practical side, because austerity cuts economic growth, and growth is necessary in order to have both the industrial capacity and discretionary funds necessary to take on and complete such a massive project. And I’m sorry, but it did come off as an attack. Let’s leave the ad hominems out of it and engage in good faith discussion.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineering All things we have never done at scale. Techno-optimism will not get us out of this hole.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Which is why we need a lot of resources to perfect and scale. Which right now means increasing average carbon footprint due to our mix of energy sources and industrial technology. This is the equivalent of “you need to spend money to make money.”

IneffablePigeon 5y ago

Pour qué no los dos? I mostly agree in the long term, but in some ways analogously to the pandemic strategy of short term mitigation whilst long term solutions are put in place, I see few downsides to trying to stem the flow now by altering behaviour, in order to give us more time to fix the issue properly. There's also a sliding scale - not all things people can do to reduce their footprint are really "austerity" but rather alternatives with a different set of tradeoffs. A sideways move that requires a culture shift. I don't mean this to come across as an attack - I don't know your motivations and I'm guilty of this personally - but IMO most people I talk to who argue your position tend to be doing it as much as a rationalisation of their own behaviour than as a position they've come to from first principles.

garmaine 5y ago
On the moral side, because austerity cuts standard of living worldwide and will drive billions back into poverty traps. On the practical side, because austerity cuts economic growth, and growth is necessary in order to have both the industrial capacity and discretionary funds necessary to take on and complete such a massive project. And I’m sorry, but it did come off as an attack. Let’s leave the ad hominems out of it and engage in good faith discussion.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineering All things we have never done at scale. Techno-optimism will not get us out of this hole.

garmaine 5y ago
Which is why we need a lot of resources to perfect and scale. Which right now means increasing average carbon footprint due to our mix of energy sources and industrial technology. This is the equivalent of “you need to spend money to make money.”