3 ms·
> No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fuel consumption". There's really no other option though, there are pretty solid reasons rooted in basic phys
by wizofaus 4y ago
> No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fuel consumption".
There's really no other option though, there are pretty solid reasons rooted in basic physics why CO2 capture/scrubbing are not feasible at a large enough scale to really matter, geoengineering proposals are unproven, expensive and high risk, and the cost of attempting to adapt to the sorts of temperature and sea level changes expected to take place over the next few 100 years if we don't reduce emissions would be measured in innumerable human and non- human lives. Actually we'll likely need all 4 strategies, but replacing fossil-fuel energy sources with largely carbon neutral ones is almost certainly the simplest and cheapest, and if we'd started doing so 30 or 40 years ago there'd probably be little to worry about by now.
- pif 4y agoYour answer reflects the dogmatic view that too often is attached to otherwise serious reports and articles. You are technically correct that reducing emissions is the only way to impact the temperature raising, but why do people think that stopping global warming is the only option? Why do you think that embracing it is not possible? Whatever we do, we know that global warming is not going to disappear in a matter of years, and global cooling is at least several decades in the future. We must learn anyway to live with the current climate, so we can choose how much we want to give up of the modern way of living for how many fewer degrees.
- wizofaus 4y agoHow much of the IPCC report have you read? If temperatures are allowed to increase 5 or 6 degrees the changes would be catastrophic, even without considering the very real possibility of tipping points triggering run away climate change that would make the planet entirely uninhabitable. There's nothing dogmatic about it, this is our absolute best scientific understanding at this point in time. There are various hypotheses around that allow for the possibility of negative feedbacks that will reduce the likelihood of catastrophe, but so far none have stood up to testing well enough to gain any more than fringe acceptance. I desperately hope somehow one of them turns out to be right, but that's no basis for sensible policy.
- pl-94 4y agoEven the special report on 1.5 degrees is super scary. I stopped taking the plane and became vegetarian just after reading it in 2019.
- pif 4y agoWhich is very nice and kind of you, but do you realize that word climate will not notice your effort unless they are shared by a few billion people?
- ashildr 4y ago> Why do you think that embracing it is not possible? We need to learn to stop worrying and to love climate change? Because it will destruct significant portions of inhabited land? Because we now can have a marina where once were densely inhabited cities? Because those surviving the famines and wars will have a low BMI? Your comment is the most stupid shilling I read in a while. How about embracing a truck on the highway?
- pif 4y agoI'm not saying it will be nice. I'm just reminding that current science states that global warming is here to stay. > Because we now can have a marina where once were densely inhabited cities? I don't agree with your "can". We will have a marina where today are densely inhabited cities. No shouting "stop fossil fuels", no actual stopping fossil fuels will prevent huge cities to disappear. We can (and must) avoid the uber-super catastrophe, but part of the problem is that the situation is much worse than most people appreciate. There is no alternative to learning to cope with global warming.
- wizofaus 4y ago> We can (and must) avoid the uber-super catastrophe, Alright, so let's hear your proposal for doing so that doesn't involve stopping the use of fossil fuels? And yes, huge amounts of adaptation will be necessary no matter what else we do, nobody's arguing otherwise.