4 ms·
I am unsure how to respond to your comment: on one hand you contend that we are doing something, on the other you accept that emissions are too high and growin
by LatteLazy 3y ago
I am unsure how to respond to your comment: on one hand you contend that we are doing something, on the other you accept that emissions are too high and growing...
We've been "about" to do something for decades now. A Cynic might suspect the only reason the rate of increase has fallen is Covid (since the last figures are 2021/2022). And even with that, the problem is (a) getting worse and (b) getting worse rapidly. It's just that the 2nd differential has fallen. Like if we were driving off a cliff, but stopped accelerating, we'd still be going rapidly in the wrong direction...
- bryanlarsen 3y agoThe second derivative went very slightly negative in 2015, well before COVID. The narrative pushed by many is that we need some sort of deus ex machina to save us -- nuclear or hydrogen or the overthrow of capitalism or killing off 90% of the world's population or something. That's BS. We know what the problem is, we know how to fix it and we are fixing it, just too slowly. No magic solution, just a lot of hard work. Keep doing what we're doing, but do more of it, and faster.
- LatteLazy 3y agoI disagree I am afraid. We DO need a very large change. That does not mean we will get one. I actually think we will just adapt (as best as we are able). Remember: the change required is a matter of physics and economics. That change being politically or morally unacceptable would not make it any less necessary. But by your own admission we have do everything we are willing to do (and had a pandemic), and barely touched the 2nd differential. That's the opposite of progress (it's continued progress in the wrong direction). At this rate, we will still be decades from sustainable emissions long after I am dead (and the earth has warmed beyond liveability)