4 ms·

That's what I thought. I've seen 10 degrees as well. Sorry man huge hard disagree. 100 trillion to maybe reduce temperature by a tiny tiny amount is clearly no

That's what I thought. I've seen 10 degrees as well. Sorry man huge hard disagree. 100 trillion to maybe reduce temperature by a tiny tiny amount is clearly not worth it. "But but but, something might happen!" There's plenty already happening. Increase supply of healthcare, for example ...

boxed 4y ago
You're confused. We shouldn't spending "100 trillion to maybe reduce temperature by a tiny tiny amount". We should spend that to not raise the temperate indefinitely. Clearly we can't just raise the temperate 50 degrees. Everyone dies then. But the no-climate-action idea will in fact end up there. It will just take centuries. So we have to put a line in the sand at some point. We literally can't go on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and de-terraform Earth. We know roughly what is safe, and we're shooting way past it.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  > You're confused. nope... > We should spend that to not raise the temperate indefinitely. indefinitely ...? > We know roughly what is safe we're not in any danger from our climate
  - boxed 4y ago
    > indefinitely ...? Yea. If we keep burning fossil fuels. I mean, they will run out, but it's not going to happen in a long time. Long enough for us to change the climate way past human survivability on most of Earth. > we're not in any danger from our climate What? Of course we are. That's the entire point. You lower the average temperature 6 (5 from pre-industrial levels) degrees and you've got an ice age. Half of Europe literally covered in several kilometers of ice! We've already raised the temperature 1 degree above baseline. That's a LOT.
    - __pache__ 4y ago
      > Yea. If we keep burning fossil fuels. I mean, they will run out who said otherwise? > What? Of course we are. not really. > You lower the average temperature 6 thank god we have lots of earth-greening CO2.. > We've already raised the temperature 1 degree above baseline. That's a LOT. we're coming out of an ice age

boxed 4y ago

You're confused. We shouldn't spending "100 trillion to maybe reduce temperature by a tiny tiny amount". We should spend that to not raise the temperate indefinitely. Clearly we can't just raise the temperate 50 degrees. Everyone dies then. But the no-climate-action idea will in fact end up there. It will just take centuries. So we have to put a line in the sand at some point. We literally can't go on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and de-terraform Earth. We know roughly what is safe, and we're shooting way past it.

__pache__ 4y ago
> You're confused. nope... > We should spend that to not raise the temperate indefinitely. indefinitely ...? > We know roughly what is safe we're not in any danger from our climate
- boxed 4y ago
  > indefinitely ...? Yea. If we keep burning fossil fuels. I mean, they will run out, but it's not going to happen in a long time. Long enough for us to change the climate way past human survivability on most of Earth. > we're not in any danger from our climate What? Of course we are. That's the entire point. You lower the average temperature 6 (5 from pre-industrial levels) degrees and you've got an ice age. Half of Europe literally covered in several kilometers of ice! We've already raised the temperature 1 degree above baseline. That's a LOT.
  - __pache__ 4y ago
    > Yea. If we keep burning fossil fuels. I mean, they will run out who said otherwise? > What? Of course we are. not really. > You lower the average temperature 6 thank god we have lots of earth-greening CO2.. > We've already raised the temperature 1 degree above baseline. That's a LOT. we're coming out of an ice age