3 ms·
This ban is scheduled over a decade from now, and is probably too late to effect change. This is incremental change and it is not enough change to solve the pro
by lukeschlather 4y ago
This ban is scheduled over a decade from now, and is probably too late to effect change. This is incremental change and it is not enough change to solve the problem. Really I find this whole line of reasoning very strange. It's well-documented what we need to do to minimize climate change. We're already overdue to take action. An incremental plan is fine but the increments must be large enough to solve the problem (and this is actually an example of the increment being too small, yet you suggest it is too large and we should be more cautious.)
- twblalock 4y agoThe voters decide which increments are too big. It's pretty simple -- if they would vote to prevent or roll back a given climate policy, the increment is too big. Small incremental improvement is better than failed attempts to force through large increments resulting in no improvement or negative improvement.
- lukeschlather 4y agoThat seems like disingenuous language. Climate change is akin to an avalanche threatening our town, and we're looking to shore up the retaining wall before the avalanche gets out of control. If the incremental changes do not build a sufficiently sturdy retaining wall we might as well not bother - we will have done a lot of work and the avalanche will still destroy the town. There's no middle ground when you're talking about an existential threat.
- OccamsMirror 4y agoIt's classic American Right freedom signaling. It's always freedom to. Never freedom from. Freedom to buy ICE cars. Not freedom from the existential risk of climate change.