4 ms·

Why do people keep pretending that we can only focus on one industry at a time? News flash: WE CAN ADDRESS MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME. What about coal? You tell m

Why do people keep pretending that we can only focus on one industry at a time? News flash: WE CAN ADDRESS MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME. What about coal? You tell me, what part of fixing rice production interferes with shutting down coal mining? Because as far as anyone can tell, the answer is not a single part.

melling 4y ago
We already are seeing climate issues. We could have been off coal by now. “A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice” By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly in this century. Unfortunately, it sounds like we are lining up our miracles so by 2050, we’ll be at net zero.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  Nothing you're saying here responds to the question. Everyone knows we're seeing climate issues. Why does making agricultural improvements prevent dealing with coal? > By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. This is true of all problems, not just the big ones. > We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. If we dealt with all of the smaller problems, we'd have more time to solve the larger problems, or they make take care of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly this century, reducing the need for power consumption from coal plants.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  You are aware that there are eight billion humans on the planet, right? If everyone helped, we'd already be done: they're not. But conversely, it's not like we have ten people and we can either put them on coal, or on rice. We have millions of people actively involved at all levels, and the folks tackling rice have zero qualifications to solve coal, and vice versa. It's like complaining that the folks making bicycles aren't making office buildings: stop being part of the problem by pretending these are mutually exclusive problems to solve and that people should stop trying to solve entire percentage values. 2% is not "a drop in the bucket", 2% is a huge number. We can have different people work on different problems at the same time. By insisting we don't do something in parallel, all you're doing is telling folks to stop solving problems they can solve at an industrial scale. Are you solving coal, right now? No? Why are you wasting time and not solving coal? Oh you're doing something else atm? Why aren't you dropping that on the spot and solving coal? This is not a constructive attitude, it's flat out being part of the problem.
replygirl 4y ago
we've been proving since before the kyoto protocol that we really aren't capable of addressing much at once. the first clean air act was 60 years ago, while the paris agreement's net-zero horizon is 27 years out. i don't trust a many-pronged approach because i already live with the consequences of its failure
dylan604 4y ago
As a devil's advocate (I too believe we can make simultaneous changes), what about the concept of "don't change more than one thing" during testing so you know exactly what change had what effect? What if we stop using coal and change agriculture only to find out that the effect was/is too much? To find out that the changes to agriculture caused side effects elsewhere. Mashing all the buttons at once rarely plays out as the correct method.
hinkley 4y ago
I could fill a book on the rationalizations about sequential prioritization just in the software industry. Our politics are chump change compared to geopolitical issues.

melling 4y ago

We already are seeing climate issues. We could have been off coal by now. “A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice” By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly in this century. Unfortunately, it sounds like we are lining up our miracles so by 2050, we’ll be at net zero.

idopmstuff 4y ago
Nothing you're saying here responds to the question. Everyone knows we're seeing climate issues. Why does making agricultural improvements prevent dealing with coal? > By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. This is true of all problems, not just the big ones. > We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. If we dealt with all of the smaller problems, we'd have more time to solve the larger problems, or they make take care of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly this century, reducing the need for power consumption from coal plants.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
You are aware that there are eight billion humans on the planet, right? If everyone helped, we'd already be done: they're not. But conversely, it's not like we have ten people and we can either put them on coal, or on rice. We have millions of people actively involved at all levels, and the folks tackling rice have zero qualifications to solve coal, and vice versa. It's like complaining that the folks making bicycles aren't making office buildings: stop being part of the problem by pretending these are mutually exclusive problems to solve and that people should stop trying to solve entire percentage values. 2% is not "a drop in the bucket", 2% is a huge number. We can have different people work on different problems at the same time. By insisting we don't do something in parallel, all you're doing is telling folks to stop solving problems they can solve at an industrial scale. Are you solving coal, right now? No? Why are you wasting time and not solving coal? Oh you're doing something else atm? Why aren't you dropping that on the spot and solving coal? This is not a constructive attitude, it's flat out being part of the problem.

replygirl 4y ago

we've been proving since before the kyoto protocol that we really aren't capable of addressing much at once. the first clean air act was 60 years ago, while the paris agreement's net-zero horizon is 27 years out. i don't trust a many-pronged approach because i already live with the consequences of its failure

dylan604 4y ago

As a devil's advocate (I too believe we can make simultaneous changes), what about the concept of "don't change more than one thing" during testing so you know exactly what change had what effect? What if we stop using coal and change agriculture only to find out that the effect was/is too much? To find out that the changes to agriculture caused side effects elsewhere. Mashing all the buttons at once rarely plays out as the correct method.

hinkley 4y ago

I could fill a book on the rationalizations about sequential prioritization just in the software industry. Our politics are chump change compared to geopolitical issues.