5 ms·
It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very re
by pyrale 4y ago
It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak.
If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.
- goatlover 4y agoI don't see how reducing consumption is a realistic goal considering the economic and political fallout from pursuing such reduction. What political parties would be suicidal enough to put such policies into place? When would a majority of the voting public support such goals in most countries, particularly the biggest polluters? Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? We got to see how much people were willing to put up with during the pandemic, and the answer is not that much reduction for very long, at least not the kind that would seriously curb emissions.
- pyrale 4y ago> Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? See, that's the difference between an organized society planning this change and just letting it happen.