5 ms·

Meaning, of course, tragically.

• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Im not actually sure of your meaning.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Climate catastrophe is imminent, and governments dragging their feet are directly responsible. It is very far from clear that civilization collapse will be averted.
    • phpisthebest 4y ago
      So then you are in group 1.... Clearly. Most people disagree
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        No, because almost everything that could be done about averting climate catastrophe would be massively good for the economy and global prosperity, immediately. It could be uncomfortable for owners of coal mines and oil supply chain companies. You telegraph your sympathies. Global civilization collapse followed by billions starving and thermonuclear war will not end up good for anybody. But with some luck you could die first, something foot-draggers seem to count on. Why should they risk any hint of (expected) discomfort for benefits they would not anyway live to see? What have their grandchildren ever done for them?
        • phpisthebest 4y ago
          >>because almost everything that could be done about averting climate catastrophe would be massively good for the economy and global prosperity, immediately ROFL.... nothing is further from the truth, the cost of "green" energy is massively regressive for people in "rich" nations like the US. Hell just the cost of replacing gas cars with EV's would be HUGE on most people, and EV can not replace every type of vehicle (see people that have to tow anything) That is not getting into the huge problem for norther climates where sure Heat pumps have come a long way but still are not as good as a NatGas for extreme cold climate There are countless other technological problems that will make daily expenses of people massively more costly than they are with traditional energy.
          • ncmncm 4y ago
            You seem unaware of the huge tax you pay for continued access to petroleum. To a large degree, most of military expense is to maintain that access. Energy from renewables will be vastly cheaper than humanity has ever experienced since the forests were wiped out, and will fuel a golden age. Provided, of course, that civilization does not collapse first, as you seem to say you would prefer.
            • prottog 4y ago
              You keep claiming that the GP would prefer civilization to collapse. Nothing in their writing suggests that, and your only proof is that they disagree with your assertion that a climate catastrophe is imminent and can only be averted by radical means. Again, that puts you in their category 1. > Energy from renewables will be vastly cheaper than humanity has ever experienced Handwaving "will be" is not good enough for policy.
              • ncmncm 4y ago
                You have evidently not seen the cost curves of renewable energy sources. They have declined through many orders of magnitude, with no end in sight, similarly to transistors following Moore's Law. "Will be" is exactly what policy needs to be based on. Policy based on "what was" is policy failure. You are very confused about this "category 1". Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity. Action preventing climate catastrophe and collapse of civilization would discomfit only those heavily bought into the petroleum economy.
                • prottog 4y ago
                  In one hand you see no end in sight of continued technological advances that have heretofore led to decreasing unit costs in renewable energy, yet on the other hand you see imminent collapse of civilization? Are the two hands joined to the same person? If all-in renewable energy costs including storage do in fact continue to decline at the rate you imply it will, then it looks like we won't have to do anything special to bring about the end of fossil fuels. Prices will do that automatically. > Literally nobody advocates for any measure that would interfere with economic prosperity Most every proposed solution I've seen to the imminent climate catastrophe involves making it more expensive to maintain current living standards, maybe with a side order of claiming current living standards are immoral. What are these measures that make substantial headway against climate change without making people poorer? > those heavily bought into the petroleum economy You don't have to own stock in Exxon and Shell to be "bought in" to the petroleum economy. The global economy is the petroleum economy, because in the aggregate every problem facing humanity is an energy problem. I don't think many people particularly care where their energy comes from, as long as it comes to them cheaply and reliably, and so far fossil fuels have other sources beat. I'm not invested either emotionally or financially in seeing the continued success of fossil fuels; I'm invested in maintaining high living standards for myself and raising the living standards of the global poor. I remain skeptical that climate change will collapse civilization anytime soon.