3 ms·
It's now or never, as it has been for decades apparently. A lot of the negative effects of climate change are baked into the cake already, and society has repe
by scarmig 5y ago
It's now or never, as it has been for decades apparently.
A lot of the negative effects of climate change are baked into the cake already, and society has repeatedly made the decision to accept them, despite my wishing it would have chosen otherwise. At this point I think it'd be more effective just to list the cost of deferring any action for a year. I.e. "if we don't do anything for another year, that will destroy an additional trillion dollars of value and cost 50,000 additional lives compared to doing something today."
- rektide 5y agoYeah well the ice caps really are melting, at a quite prodigous rate, soooo "now or never" feels kind of accurate.
- scarmig 5y agoIt's more yesterday or never. Of course, scientists pointed it out then, with the same exact phrasing, to no public effect.
- imtringued 5y ago>It's now or never, as it has been for decades apparently. Yes and that is why temperature targets keep increasing. A few decades ago +1.5°C was "trivial" to achieve with mitigations. Now +2.5°C is "trivial". How long until +3.2°C is considered the target? How long until we are stupid enough to keep playing the game all the way to +9°C? Considering all the people that believe every gram of coal on the planet should be burned, even if that is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose, I personally think we will instead turn this into a game where the goal is to score higher and outdo the previous generation.
- RGamma 5y agoI'm afraid the consumerist (and dominating) part of society is more interested in how many years of exploitation we can still squeeze outta this baby, so this whole charade doesn't need to end.