6 ms·
Because the “practical” timeline was one started 30 years ago. But proposals were met then with the exact same “now let’s not be hasty” counterarguments. The mo
by revscat 5y ago
Because the “practical” timeline was one started 30 years ago. But proposals were met then with the exact same “now let’s not be hasty” counterarguments. The more time that elapses, the more drastic actions are required, no matter how painful.
- rscoots 5y ago>no matter how painful. Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison? The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.
- anigbrowl 5y agoI notice you are not listing any of these much easier to accomplish objectives. To be honest, I'm not very interested in your theory of public bargaining. Could you specify a few of the big ideas that you think will make a bigger difference over the next decade?
- rscoots 5y agoThere are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries. It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making. Why not 99% for example?
- anigbrowl 5y agoYes, but I don't have time to sort through hundreds of them. I'm asking which ones you think are the low hanging fruit. Just 3 or 4 examples would do.
- 1234nigger 5y agoShut the fuck up, dumb nigger.
- rscoots 5y agoHow about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas? Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas. Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?
- anigbrowl 5y agoWell, there's abundant effort already going on to shift away from fossil fuels, as you are surely aware. I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.
- rscoots 5y agoYou asked me what would "make a bigger difference" after I said that surely other initiatives could allow for ay least some gas powered cars. It seems you already agree with this so why argue?
- Retric 5y ago100% of new cars is critical because of how long cars last. People can keep a car running for 50 years after it’s sold, getting rid of ICE cars requires making them unappealing. As gas stations start to close owning an ICE car will become extremely inconvenient. A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.
- riboflavin123 5y agoBecause 100% is not enough. We need to be carbon NEGATIVE to get back to the good place. (And, yes, we'll never be 100% non-emitting. We need to be NET negative.)
- rscoots 5y agoWe're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.