6 ms·

How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is

How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.

phpnode 3y ago
we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.
- blooalien 3y ago
  Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.
circuit10 3y ago
If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one
joshstrange 3y ago
I think most of us would be fine with an "achievable goal" but that's not really what you asked for or proposed in your first comment and most of the people who say something like "I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore" aren't offering new goals as much as they are throwing up their hands and essentially saying "oh well, what are you going to do". I'm not saying you think that way but that's the people who suggest giving up say the same things. Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".
- slashdev 3y ago
  An achievable goal is exactly what I’m asking for. That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
amrocha 3y ago
There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that
- orwin 3y ago
  It is though. The Co2 we emit today will only have a greenhouse effect in 20 years. The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Indeed, this inertia has been missing in the media coverage recently where it was mentioned very often a few years ago. I wonder why.
- runarberg 3y ago
  There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C). Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built. I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years. But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X ) The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it. I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live. In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.
colonCapitalDee 3y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted? He's right. The odds that global warming will stay below 1.5C are miniscule. I guess there may be PR benefits in pushing 1.5C because it's ambitious (shoot for the moon and land among the stars), but those PR benefits will be offset by the fact that anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will realize that it's bullshit! Not to mention that using 1.5C as a goal without lying is difficult. "If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie "If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive "Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable

How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.

phpnode 3y ago

we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.

blooalien 3y ago
Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.

circuit10 3y ago

If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one

joshstrange 3y ago

I think most of us would be fine with an "achievable goal" but that's not really what you asked for or proposed in your first comment and most of the people who say something like "I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore" aren't offering new goals as much as they are throwing up their hands and essentially saying "oh well, what are you going to do". I'm not saying you think that way but that's the people who suggest giving up say the same things. Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".

slashdev 3y ago
An achievable goal is exactly what I’m asking for. That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.

amrocha 3y ago

There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that

orwin 3y ago
It is though. The Co2 we emit today will only have a greenhouse effect in 20 years. The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Indeed, this inertia has been missing in the media coverage recently where it was mentioned very often a few years ago. I wonder why.
runarberg 3y ago
There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C). Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built. I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years. But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X ) The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it. I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live. In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.

colonCapitalDee 3y ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted? He's right. The odds that global warming will stay below 1.5C are miniscule. I guess there may be PR benefits in pushing 1.5C because it's ambitious (shoot for the moon and land among the stars), but those PR benefits will be offset by the fact that anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will realize that it's bullshit! Not to mention that using 1.5C as a goal without lying is difficult. "If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie "If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive "Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable