5 ms·

If you really want to optimize for the long term, obtaining goodwill by not making the forced habit changes first would be better.

D13Fd 4y ago
That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible. This is NOW. TODAY. CO2 has become such a convenient misdirection device that the industry uses to keep your attention away from rather current things that can very well implode life as we know it well before any "climate problems" actually become disruptive as these all other pollutants are today. Why else do you think Exxon is rated 100% ESG compliant? Yes! They bought some credits or whatever, but still dump a few million tons of actual pollutants that destroy life TODAY. Just keep everyone spinning on the carbon hamster wheels. It's the green way.
  - DFHippie 4y ago
    Two things can be bad at the same time. The people trying to do something about CO2 are the same people trying to do something about PFAS. And not doing something about CO2 doesn't cause something to be done about PFAS.
  - vegetablepotpie 4y ago
    You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that. Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past. Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.
    - kodah 4y ago
      In California (which this article and thread are about) agriculture is actually up in terms of productivity and down in terms of water utilization. The problem is the solvency of Ag's GDP value on the state register, which went from 5% to 2%, is not up. I'm not sure agriculture is really affected as much by fossil fuels as it is by economic pressure and water cost/benefit ratios given the economic pressure.
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      Fossil fuel again is a misdirection. Neonics, BPA, DDT and all sorts of other fun stuff would exist without fossil fuels. Semiconductor manufacturing gaves is few superfund sites in the US. Nothing to do with fossil fuels either. The big problem is total lack of liability. You can dump millions of actual toxins and poison literally billions and no jail time for anyone involved, not even a token patsy.
tootie 4y ago
People can stop burning fossil fuels any time they want and yet they don't. 72M voted for a climate denier in 2020. We absolutely have to start telling everybody what to do.

D13Fd 4y ago

That doesn’t obtain goodwill, it just delays the inevitable while we continue putting these gases into the atmosphere.

forum_ghost 4y ago
Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible. This is NOW. TODAY. CO2 has become such a convenient misdirection device that the industry uses to keep your attention away from rather current things that can very well implode life as we know it well before any "climate problems" actually become disruptive as these all other pollutants are today. Why else do you think Exxon is rated 100% ESG compliant? Yes! They bought some credits or whatever, but still dump a few million tons of actual pollutants that destroy life TODAY. Just keep everyone spinning on the carbon hamster wheels. It's the green way.
- DFHippie 4y ago
  Two things can be bad at the same time. The people trying to do something about CO2 are the same people trying to do something about PFAS. And not doing something about CO2 doesn't cause something to be done about PFAS.
- vegetablepotpie 4y ago
  You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that. Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past. Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.
  - kodah 4y ago
    In California (which this article and thread are about) agriculture is actually up in terms of productivity and down in terms of water utilization. The problem is the solvency of Ag's GDP value on the state register, which went from 5% to 2%, is not up. I'm not sure agriculture is really affected as much by fossil fuels as it is by economic pressure and water cost/benefit ratios given the economic pressure.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    Fossil fuel again is a misdirection. Neonics, BPA, DDT and all sorts of other fun stuff would exist without fossil fuels. Semiconductor manufacturing gaves is few superfund sites in the US. Nothing to do with fossil fuels either. The big problem is total lack of liability. You can dump millions of actual toxins and poison literally billions and no jail time for anyone involved, not even a token patsy.

tootie 4y ago

People can stop burning fossil fuels any time they want and yet they don't. 72M voted for a climate denier in 2020. We absolutely have to start telling everybody what to do.