6 ms·

Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the envir

Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
misiti3780 4y ago
We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
- CuteDinosaur 4y ago
  It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
  - politician 4y ago
    Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years. The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything. Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Super simple and good starting place.
  - nick__m 4y ago
    What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
    - kitkat_new 4y ago
      The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
    - blooalien 4y ago
      The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
  - H_Pylori 4y ago
    [dead]
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
    - CuteDinosaur 4y ago
      I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board. > we really don't know what else would We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up. > We know it would solve the problem No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not. Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good. * Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
      - nradov 4y ago
        That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  that may have been a solution a long time ago, but it wouldn't have fixed the meat problem or the transportation problem.
- diydsp 4y ago
  "There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000] "The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000] [0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nuclear-power-projects https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu... [0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
  - nick__m 4y ago
    I really like your reference numbering scheme!
    - p1mrx 4y ago
      The numbering scheme is [1], [2], ... in float32.
  - nightski 4y ago
    Found the windows error code engineer.
- oezi 4y ago
  Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables? Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
  - misiti3780 4y ago
    That is a policy issue, if you want to save the world, you are going to have to drop the onerous regulations. You cant have it both ways.
  - jonasdegendt 4y ago
    For those wondering, it’s about 6% of global GDP [0], annually. That’s what the world was spending on all things military during the Cold War, so it’s very doable. [0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-four-trillion https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...
- the_gastropod 4y ago
  It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself. MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
  - darkmighty 4y ago
    The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation) It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable. Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  Nuclear needs such a highly complex organisation to keep it running. I really don't think that's a long term vision with the current technology. Also Ukraine just last year was close to a drama with.the fighting.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  That would have helped if we had started 20-30 years ago, but it is too late now. Renewables have become much cheaper, and the installations come online much more quickly; nuclear can no longer compete.
input_sh 4y ago
I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity. So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech. Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nomel 4y ago
  > and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change. How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?
  - input_sh 4y ago
    The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially. We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice. That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.
hinkley 4y ago
We will live long enough for some of these hens to come home to roost. Kids judge their parents on their inability to change when it matters, and when you’re old and infirm and “kids” are taking care of you, you’re gonna be in for a bad time.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
I didn't get to choose it either. It's what happens when money is power. If you want to fix it going forward, you've got to divorce the two.
- circlefavshape 4y ago
  If we have to divorce money and power in order to fix climate change then we are completely fucked
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Yes, we definitely are.
tiahura 4y ago
Our kids will also benefit from the advances provided by fossil fuels. Such is life.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  No, previous generations profited from easy access to energy, and let all that profit concentrate in the hands of the few, meaning that average people born today have a measurably crummier chance at a good life than previous generations.
- chmod775 4y ago
  Most of these advances rely on (actual and quasi-) resources we're doing our best to exhaust before some future generation gets to have a share. "Peak oil" and CO2 are just the tip of the iceberg. Some future generation is going to dig up the garbage we buried and harvest it for resources. To a degree we're already doing this ourselves looking for stuff like palladium and rhodium.
justinator 4y ago
I'm not having kids - I'm already shouldering all the terrible decisions of my parents and their parents.
- Dig1t 4y ago
  [flagged]
yodsanklai 4y ago
> Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else
- mcny 4y ago
  > Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else I think we are talking about people who are yet to be born (in the future), not younger humans already born.
- MSFT_Edging 4y ago
  Who teaches the kid that individual consumerism comes before everything else?
  - blooalien 4y ago
    And who teaches that kid that any other kid who doesn't adhere to that "individual consumerism first" mentality is a valid target for endless harassment and hatred?
Dig1t 4y ago
Our kids will also inherit all of the amazing technologies and scientific advances that were developed as a result of cheap, abundant energy. It is a tradeoff and climate change is a solvable problem. It’s easy and comforting to spout predictions of the apocalypse, but realistically speaking, things will be okay.
- pinusc 4y ago
  Realistically speaking, all signs are pointing to things not being okay. Climate is not a "solvable problem" anymore, we are past the point of no return (several of them). Damage control is all we can do now, and we are not doing it. If you think things will be okay because historically has been so, let me remind you that a permanent change of this scale is a catastrophe that is unmatched and unprecedented in human history. Maybe nuclear conflict was as scary, but its solution was comparatively much simpler, and it never passed the point of no return. More than that, things usually do not turn out okay except for the class of people who initially benefited from bringing about the problem. Many peoples have faced horrors that were not and could not be undone, though it's easy to forget that while living in the society built on their ashes. Things always turn out to be okay... for the colonizer, the wealthy, the powerful Statistically speaking, commenting on this platform firmly places you in a category that will likely survive climate change (at least in the medium term...) and probably profit from it, so excuse me for calling out your reasons for believing that technology will save us. By the way, it is my understanding that the scientific consensus is that technological solutions are not going to be able to save us (as they are impractical, too far off, and harder to implement than just stopping the use of fossil fuels). Also if you think that "spouting predictions of the apocalypse" is comforting, you severely misunderstand the psychological issues that (especially the younger generations) are facing in light of terrifying powerlessness against climate change Ultimately, this is a political problem, and assuring everyone that "things will be okay" only makes it less likely that any action will be taken in time. Now is the time to panic, and do something about it. If we are able to turn the tide and somehow make things okay... great! The panic was well placed.
s5300 4y ago
Hopefully the kids will realize the only retribution they’re going to get involves sending everybody that caused this into a wood chipper that shoots out directly into a fire. They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  I suppose the carbon intensity of firing people into the sun is too high
lelanthran 4y ago
You make it sound like out generation chose this. No, we didn't, just like our kids didn't. We didn't choose shit, we took what we were given while a small minority in a minority of countries chose this.
somsak2 4y ago
How is it "generations of neglect" if we didn't even really know about global warming until the 80s? Maybe you can label the last decade or two as reckless but hard for me to get on board with such a long time scale when broad awareness is so recent.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

misiti3780 4y ago

We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.

CuteDinosaur 4y ago
It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
- politician 4y ago
  Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years. The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything. Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Super simple and good starting place.
- nick__m 4y ago
  What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
  - kitkat_new 4y ago
    The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
  - blooalien 4y ago
    The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
- H_Pylori 4y ago
  [dead]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
  - CuteDinosaur 4y ago
    I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board. > we really don't know what else would We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up. > We know it would solve the problem No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not. Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good. * Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
    - nradov 4y ago
      That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.
sharemywin 4y ago
that may have been a solution a long time ago, but it wouldn't have fixed the meat problem or the transportation problem.
diydsp 4y ago
"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000] "The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000] [0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nuclear-power-projects https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu... [0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
- nick__m 4y ago
  I really like your reference numbering scheme!
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    The numbering scheme is [1], [2], ... in float32.
- nightski 4y ago
  Found the windows error code engineer.
oezi 4y ago
Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables? Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
- misiti3780 4y ago
  That is a policy issue, if you want to save the world, you are going to have to drop the onerous regulations. You cant have it both ways.
- jonasdegendt 4y ago
  For those wondering, it’s about 6% of global GDP [0], annually. That’s what the world was spending on all things military during the Cold War, so it’s very doable. [0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-four-trillion https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...
the_gastropod 4y ago
It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself. MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
- darkmighty 4y ago
  The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation) It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable. Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
jiggywiggy 4y ago
Nuclear needs such a highly complex organisation to keep it running. I really don't think that's a long term vision with the current technology. Also Ukraine just last year was close to a drama with.the fighting.
marssaxman 4y ago
That would have helped if we had started 20-30 years ago, but it is too late now. Renewables have become much cheaper, and the installations come online much more quickly; nuclear can no longer compete.

input_sh 4y ago

I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity. So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech. Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nomel 4y ago
> and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change. How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?
- input_sh 4y ago
  The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially. We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice. That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.

hinkley 4y ago

We will live long enough for some of these hens to come home to roost. Kids judge their parents on their inability to change when it matters, and when you’re old and infirm and “kids” are taking care of you, you’re gonna be in for a bad time.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

I didn't get to choose it either. It's what happens when money is power. If you want to fix it going forward, you've got to divorce the two.

circlefavshape 4y ago
If we have to divorce money and power in order to fix climate change then we are completely fucked
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Yes, we definitely are.

tiahura 4y ago

Our kids will also benefit from the advances provided by fossil fuels. Such is life.

mrguyorama 4y ago
No, previous generations profited from easy access to energy, and let all that profit concentrate in the hands of the few, meaning that average people born today have a measurably crummier chance at a good life than previous generations.
chmod775 4y ago
Most of these advances rely on (actual and quasi-) resources we're doing our best to exhaust before some future generation gets to have a share. "Peak oil" and CO2 are just the tip of the iceberg. Some future generation is going to dig up the garbage we buried and harvest it for resources. To a degree we're already doing this ourselves looking for stuff like palladium and rhodium.

justinator 4y ago

I'm not having kids - I'm already shouldering all the terrible decisions of my parents and their parents.

Dig1t 4y ago
[flagged]

yodsanklai 4y ago

> Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else

mcny 4y ago
> Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else I think we are talking about people who are yet to be born (in the future), not younger humans already born.
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
Who teaches the kid that individual consumerism comes before everything else?
- blooalien 4y ago
  And who teaches that kid that any other kid who doesn't adhere to that "individual consumerism first" mentality is a valid target for endless harassment and hatred?

Dig1t 4y ago

Our kids will also inherit all of the amazing technologies and scientific advances that were developed as a result of cheap, abundant energy. It is a tradeoff and climate change is a solvable problem. It’s easy and comforting to spout predictions of the apocalypse, but realistically speaking, things will be okay.

pinusc 4y ago
Realistically speaking, all signs are pointing to things not being okay. Climate is not a "solvable problem" anymore, we are past the point of no return (several of them). Damage control is all we can do now, and we are not doing it. If you think things will be okay because historically has been so, let me remind you that a permanent change of this scale is a catastrophe that is unmatched and unprecedented in human history. Maybe nuclear conflict was as scary, but its solution was comparatively much simpler, and it never passed the point of no return. More than that, things usually do not turn out okay except for the class of people who initially benefited from bringing about the problem. Many peoples have faced horrors that were not and could not be undone, though it's easy to forget that while living in the society built on their ashes. Things always turn out to be okay... for the colonizer, the wealthy, the powerful Statistically speaking, commenting on this platform firmly places you in a category that will likely survive climate change (at least in the medium term...) and probably profit from it, so excuse me for calling out your reasons for believing that technology will save us. By the way, it is my understanding that the scientific consensus is that technological solutions are not going to be able to save us (as they are impractical, too far off, and harder to implement than just stopping the use of fossil fuels). Also if you think that "spouting predictions of the apocalypse" is comforting, you severely misunderstand the psychological issues that (especially the younger generations) are facing in light of terrifying powerlessness against climate change Ultimately, this is a political problem, and assuring everyone that "things will be okay" only makes it less likely that any action will be taken in time. Now is the time to panic, and do something about it. If we are able to turn the tide and somehow make things okay... great! The panic was well placed.

s5300 4y ago

Hopefully the kids will realize the only retribution they’re going to get involves sending everybody that caused this into a wood chipper that shoots out directly into a fire. They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.

selimthegrim 4y ago
I suppose the carbon intensity of firing people into the sun is too high

lelanthran 4y ago

You make it sound like out generation chose this. No, we didn't, just like our kids didn't. We didn't choose shit, we took what we were given while a small minority in a minority of countries chose this.

somsak2 4y ago

How is it "generations of neglect" if we didn't even really know about global warming until the 80s? Maybe you can label the last decade or two as reckless but hard for me to get on board with such a long time scale when broad awareness is so recent.