3 ms·

What you have written is the unrealistic thing. The fact that we have cognitive blinders that tends to try to go between two extremes in the middle, even when

What you have written is the unrealistic thing. The fact that we have cognitive blinders that tends to try to go between two extremes in the middle, even when one of the extremes ("extreme steps needed to avert climate disaster") is correct and the other is incorrect ("we can't stop using fossil fuel and we should just move people from disaster zones") is incorrect. You are not taking into account the scale and width of the impact of climate change, the effort to implement what you've described, and the breakdown in society that it will cause (along with second order effects). In the early parts of covid there was almost a breakdown in civil order because of a lack of toilet paper. When that is people dying in heatwaves, mass migration, and starvation it will not be possible to handle it in a methodical fashion. We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative.

moonchrome 5y ago
>We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative. That's such a ridiculous statement in face of recent events - Europe can't even replace fossil fuels imported from Russia in years from now with the insane political will behind such a move - and this is some of the richest countries in the world with very left leaning/pro green energy governments. This isn't replacing fossil fuels - it's replacing one source of fuels used with another.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from rapid but planned shifts. The cutoff of Russian gas to the European market is not very comparable. And really, there is no negotiation or bargaining with the catastrophic climate outcome - it is has no regard to how difficult it will be to move off of fossil fuels. If you want to connect this to European situation, you can see that one nation depends on fossil fuels to maintain geopolitical relevance, and you may look at political parties allied and supported by that nation and the energy policies they support. Since it's extistential for Russia (and US/Saudi petrochemical concerns) to keep people on fossil fuels, they undermine moves off it it. They flood global anti-environment movement with money and delay and obstruct fixing this, and make people believe it is less possible that it is. They are completely ambivalent to what will probably be the death of a majority of the world's population under worst case scenarios before the ended of this century (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForP...), which is currently the most likely outcome. Anyway, we have change our ways, or doom our children. That's the choice ahead.

moonchrome 5y ago

>We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative. That's such a ridiculous statement in face of recent events - Europe can't even replace fossil fuels imported from Russia in years from now with the insane political will behind such a move - and this is some of the richest countries in the world with very left leaning/pro green energy governments. This isn't replacing fossil fuels - it's replacing one source of fuels used with another.

throwaway5752 5y ago
There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from rapid but planned shifts. The cutoff of Russian gas to the European market is not very comparable. And really, there is no negotiation or bargaining with the catastrophic climate outcome - it is has no regard to how difficult it will be to move off of fossil fuels. If you want to connect this to European situation, you can see that one nation depends on fossil fuels to maintain geopolitical relevance, and you may look at political parties allied and supported by that nation and the energy policies they support. Since it's extistential for Russia (and US/Saudi petrochemical concerns) to keep people on fossil fuels, they undermine moves off it it. They flood global anti-environment movement with money and delay and obstruct fixing this, and make people believe it is less possible that it is. They are completely ambivalent to what will probably be the death of a majority of the world's population under worst case scenarios before the ended of this century (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForP...), which is currently the most likely outcome. Anyway, we have change our ways, or doom our children. That's the choice ahead.