5 ms·

The best scenario possible for humans alive right now is to use fossil fuels (including coal) to reduce poverty and generally improve quality of life but having

The best scenario possible for humans alive right now is to use fossil fuels (including coal) to reduce poverty and generally improve quality of life but having the fumes concentrated in areas where there is no population and have the electricity transported to major centers of population via high voltage lines. Nothing is as cheap and vastly availible, doesn't require an overhaul of the grid, no need to develop new tech, it's all understood down to the last detail. Everything else is just gaslighting, hypocrisy and selfishness that has people in rich areas of the world and especially the very rich areas within very rich countries (think California, New York, Oslo, Stokholm) care more about their children and their children's children than people who are alive right now. The worse are those who don't have children and don't plan to have children but they still live in those rich areas and use climate to virtue signal. In one word Leonardo Di Caprio. Amazing actor, great producer and fundraiser, delicious taste as far as his women but completely unaware of the trade-offs necessary to do what he wants. The moment actors and people from the show-biz stopped supporting Africa and turned to climate you understand the deep divide between Hollywood, NYC and the priorities of the rest of the country, even with something as trivial as empathy. The rest of the country has empathy for humans whereas NYC and LA graduated to empathy towards animals and inanimate object such as climate.

marssaxman 4y ago
> having the fumes concentrated in areas where there is no population This will not help. It does not matter where the emissions happen because CO2 circulates globally. We have already burnt enough fossil fuels to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to guarantee decades of climate change. If we continue burning fossil fuels, the rate of climate change will continue to increase.
- JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
  You want to fight the CO2 that does the warming, that's an elite thought which generates itself in elite and rich areas such as California and New York. I meant it as a way to fight the CO2 which causes cancer and respiratory problems, so you move the large emissions to unpopulated areas and then use high voltage to bring electricity in populated areas. The rest of the world wants to fight pollution, only the elites want to fight climate change because their wealth affords them to focus on problems and time horizons which are simply not relevant nor accessible for the rest of the world.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    That's a weirdly paternalistic perspective. Of course climate change affects everyone, everywhere.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
      > Of course climate change affects everyone, everywhere I doubt you'd be holding the same stance if you were dying of HIV and/or Malaria. And besides in general people living in bubbles of wealth rarely are conscious about being in them or the priorities of people outside such bubbles. If you asked a billionaire they'll probably perceive themselves as the underdogs fighting for the forgotten men and women, oh wait the #1 person on Forbes shouts and whines about being an underdog fighting for the forgotten men and women each day, multiple times per day.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        You have a serious axe to grind, pal. Best of luck to you.

marssaxman 4y ago

> having the fumes concentrated in areas where there is no population This will not help. It does not matter where the emissions happen because CO2 circulates globally. We have already burnt enough fossil fuels to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to guarantee decades of climate change. If we continue burning fossil fuels, the rate of climate change will continue to increase.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
You want to fight the CO2 that does the warming, that's an elite thought which generates itself in elite and rich areas such as California and New York. I meant it as a way to fight the CO2 which causes cancer and respiratory problems, so you move the large emissions to unpopulated areas and then use high voltage to bring electricity in populated areas. The rest of the world wants to fight pollution, only the elites want to fight climate change because their wealth affords them to focus on problems and time horizons which are simply not relevant nor accessible for the rest of the world.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  That's a weirdly paternalistic perspective. Of course climate change affects everyone, everywhere.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
    > Of course climate change affects everyone, everywhere I doubt you'd be holding the same stance if you were dying of HIV and/or Malaria. And besides in general people living in bubbles of wealth rarely are conscious about being in them or the priorities of people outside such bubbles. If you asked a billionaire they'll probably perceive themselves as the underdogs fighting for the forgotten men and women, oh wait the #1 person on Forbes shouts and whines about being an underdog fighting for the forgotten men and women each day, multiple times per day.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      You have a serious axe to grind, pal. Best of luck to you.