4 ms·

>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative ener

by syshum 5y ago

>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.
titzer 5y ago
> famine, disease and death Famine, disease and death have visited the human race in many eras in many ways. In a large part, the modern world's (temporary) escape of these things is bought through gluttonous use of energy. Like goblins in a vast project to extract undreamed of amounts of energy that just happened to be lying in deep dark pools, we suck this planet dry and claim it is our right to do so. In our mad dash to get at that incredible goldmine of serendipitous energy, we failed to plan for a transition off said energy sources to something sustainable. That's tempting enough for fate to deal us one nasty fall from a great height, but the real kicker is that burning that energy pumped a noxious debt into our atmosphere with long-ranging consequences for the entire biosphere. We've been voracious little goblins that have gnawed away at the support structure that holds up our existence, namely the remarkable green jewelry that adorns the one planet that can support us. > How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here? HA! I've always thought we should pay the consequences of our actions, and in these cases, both point a pretty damning finger in the direction of our own greed. In both cases, the loudest, shrillest voices were crying about money when life was in the balance. They used codewords like "economy" and "jobs" and "livelihood". But really, we failed to plan for a system where people could have just taken a coordinated timeout. A fragile engine, always tripping forward, that dies if it sputters. In reality, we can't think of any other way of living than the way we do now, a way of avarice and entitlement, one that would appall any generation of humans that came before us.
acdha 5y ago
>>> We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. >>Largely this is correct, nor should we. If we don't deal with climate change, we will definitely have those reductions both through direct environmental impact and the much greater cost of dealing with the problems created by climate change as they happen randomly all over the world. For example, think about the cost impact we've already seen from flood damage and ask what that'll look like in 30 years — housing becoming unsafe, mosquito-borne disease, impact on agriculture, etc. > That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death We have solutions which are being deployed now for a significant fraction of human emissions. Even if that's inadequate to hit carbon zero on its own, every reduction we make now buys us time to find alternatives for the remaining sources.

by syshum 5y ago

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.

titzer 5y ago

> famine, disease and death Famine, disease and death have visited the human race in many eras in many ways. In a large part, the modern world's (temporary) escape of these things is bought through gluttonous use of energy. Like goblins in a vast project to extract undreamed of amounts of energy that just happened to be lying in deep dark pools, we suck this planet dry and claim it is our right to do so. In our mad dash to get at that incredible goldmine of serendipitous energy, we failed to plan for a transition off said energy sources to something sustainable. That's tempting enough for fate to deal us one nasty fall from a great height, but the real kicker is that burning that energy pumped a noxious debt into our atmosphere with long-ranging consequences for the entire biosphere. We've been voracious little goblins that have gnawed away at the support structure that holds up our existence, namely the remarkable green jewelry that adorns the one planet that can support us. > How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here? HA! I've always thought we should pay the consequences of our actions, and in these cases, both point a pretty damning finger in the direction of our own greed. In both cases, the loudest, shrillest voices were crying about money when life was in the balance. They used codewords like "economy" and "jobs" and "livelihood". But really, we failed to plan for a system where people could have just taken a coordinated timeout. A fragile engine, always tripping forward, that dies if it sputters. In reality, we can't think of any other way of living than the way we do now, a way of avarice and entitlement, one that would appall any generation of humans that came before us.

acdha 5y ago

>>> We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. >>Largely this is correct, nor should we. If we don't deal with climate change, we will definitely have those reductions both through direct environmental impact and the much greater cost of dealing with the problems created by climate change as they happen randomly all over the world. For example, think about the cost impact we've already seen from flood damage and ask what that'll look like in 30 years — housing becoming unsafe, mosquito-borne disease, impact on agriculture, etc. > That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death We have solutions which are being deployed now for a significant fraction of human emissions. Even if that's inadequate to hit carbon zero on its own, every reduction we make now buys us time to find alternatives for the remaining sources.