3 ms·

And because they have failed, they will probably handle it poorly with lockdowns. Will the young will be for or against that?

babelfish 5y ago
What are you talking about? Those two things have nothing to do with each other (and this is actually the second time I’ve noticed you dogwhistling).
- gorwell 5y ago
  Lockdowns reduced carbon emissions. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.at877y https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-fast-global-ozone-reductions-nasa-finds/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-f... As for dog whistling, only dogs hear those and conspiracy theorists think they do.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    An unprecedented global economic shutdown dropped emissions by 7%. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 It's not the way out, nor has it been proposed by anyone serious to be.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      People drastically decreasing consumption (i.e. moving less mass less distance) is the only way out in a realistic timeframe, if even possible now.
    - gorwell 5y ago
      I agree. But this is the ruling class we have. They thought it was a good idea to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years, and then botched the exit to top it off. Think they'll handle climate change more competently? That wouldn't follow the pattern we've seen for decades.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        I certainly think it's likely they'll poorly handle climate change; that's already happened for decades. Your assertion that they'll try handling it with lockdowns is what I'm contesting, and recent history sides with me, IMO. Said ruling class in most countries couldn't even politically sustain lockdowns for a global pandemic, let alone on a longer, more widespread term for a more abstract threat.

babelfish 5y ago

What are you talking about? Those two things have nothing to do with each other (and this is actually the second time I’ve noticed you dogwhistling).

gorwell 5y ago
Lockdowns reduced carbon emissions. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.at877y https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-fast-global-ozone-reductions-nasa-finds/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-f... As for dog whistling, only dogs hear those and conspiracy theorists think they do.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  An unprecedented global economic shutdown dropped emissions by 7%. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 It's not the way out, nor has it been proposed by anyone serious to be.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    People drastically decreasing consumption (i.e. moving less mass less distance) is the only way out in a realistic timeframe, if even possible now.
  - gorwell 5y ago
    I agree. But this is the ruling class we have. They thought it was a good idea to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years, and then botched the exit to top it off. Think they'll handle climate change more competently? That wouldn't follow the pattern we've seen for decades.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      I certainly think it's likely they'll poorly handle climate change; that's already happened for decades. Your assertion that they'll try handling it with lockdowns is what I'm contesting, and recent history sides with me, IMO. Said ruling class in most countries couldn't even politically sustain lockdowns for a global pandemic, let alone on a longer, more widespread term for a more abstract threat.