5 ms·

"it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children." But wasn't that always the case? War was always around the corner and nuclear

"it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children." But wasn't that always the case? War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. Btw. it seems the war made russia change its stance and some official "scientific" commitee has decided, that climate warming comes simply from radiation inside earth that follows a natural pattern. So no need to not burn coal then. So the hope is, that china who does believe in human made climate change will push them to still reduce CO2 somewhat. Indeed strange times.

katbyte 3y ago
The need to not burn coal goes beyond CO2, the particulates and radiation coal plants put out is terrible for health. Coal has, and continues, to cause more deaths then nuclear ever has and produces radioactive ash while at it.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I did not debate that, but russia has also a history of not really caring about pollution.
  - landemva 3y ago
    In general, socialist regimes have not cared about the environment. The Stasi records museum in Berlin has a mention of this in the courtyard. Lack of private property leads to government pollution.
pgeorgi 3y ago
> War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening. Compare to climate change where people actively try to sabotage stuff like renewables build out (e.g. "In 2019, the state tried to further penalize solar users by implementing a law that levied fines against solar users." [0] which was struck down eventually - but still, people considered that a good enough idea to propose, successfully vote and implement that?!?) to stick it to The Man (or something). [0] I don't care too much about the specifics, so not naming and shaming anybody, but the source is: https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-or-restrict-solar-panels/ https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-...
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening." Yes, but still all it takes is one crazy guy at the wrong position and time. I am not ok with that and rather would have all the nukes directed towards the sky against asteroids. And I am also not ok with producing tanks and artillery instead of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. But it is, what it is. Too many short sighted people in position of power.
koheripbal 3y ago
We were lucky nuclear war didn't happen, and it still might. I think the risk of nuclear war is higher now, with more nations having more weapons, fewer treaties preventing profession, and an increasingly multipolar power dynamic in international affairs.
- spacephysics 3y ago
  I highly recommend this video: https://youtu.be/jG8LJ0QkBo4 https://youtu.be/jG8LJ0QkBo4 I too thought we were closer to nuclear war now. But really with US second strike capability, and the fact that many of the nuclear warhead numbers don’t take into account usable missiles, among other factors, makes me sleep a bit easier at night.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Yea there currently exists a plausible risk of the Taliban taking control of an ailing Pakistan and its 11 nukes. Thank you Mr Kissenger
willcipriano 3y ago
> But wasn't that always the case? Nope and it isn't the case now. End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, pretty much all of them have/had them. My personal guess is that egos are so big that people can't imagine a world after them so it's easier to say the world is going to end.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, The different tech that can make good on the apocalypse are a relatively recent addition to the equation. We've had the ability to lay waste to the planet for just a handful of generations.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Another feature of human end of the world predictions is its always different this time.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      Okay. So make the equation equate. How could humanity make most of the planet uninhabitable 1000 years ago?
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Lots of reasons, by having sex or praying the wrong way were common. The wrong way being the way some other out group does it. Now we can end the world by doing things like driving the wrong kind of car (but not by flying around the world to "broaden the mind" as in group members like to do that). You can even buy indulgences.
        WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        None of those things are responsive to the question: What existed 1000 years ago that humanity could use to make the planet uninhabitable? If you don't have an answer to the actual question at hand, it's okay to say so.
vondur 3y ago
China doesn't care one bit about climate change. China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...
- adrianN 3y ago
  China's CO2/kWh is going down reasonably quickly for a growing economy. They could do a lot better of course (couldn't we all?), but they're not just building coal plants; they're also building renewables and nuclear. "China does X Y-times more than other countries" is a headline that can be recycled for almost every topic. There are 1.4 billion people in China.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I think they do care (they are also number 1 in rollout of most renewables), but they care more for social stability, that they can only sustain with high economic growth.
- helij 3y ago
  How to reconcile the above article with this[0]? [0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Buttons840 3y ago
War has indeed always threatened to take away our children's futures. Yet the possibility of peace is ever present. The difference with climate change is the "peaceful" analog is vanishing. Humanity has always been able to choose peace. But we may soon not be able to choose to live on a healthy planet.

katbyte 3y ago

The need to not burn coal goes beyond CO2, the particulates and radiation coal plants put out is terrible for health. Coal has, and continues, to cause more deaths then nuclear ever has and produces radioactive ash while at it.

hutzlibu 3y ago
I did not debate that, but russia has also a history of not really caring about pollution.
- landemva 3y ago
  In general, socialist regimes have not cared about the environment. The Stasi records museum in Berlin has a mention of this in the courtyard. Lack of private property leads to government pollution.

pgeorgi 3y ago

> War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it. All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening. Compare to climate change where people actively try to sabotage stuff like renewables build out (e.g. "In 2019, the state tried to further penalize solar users by implementing a law that levied fines against solar users." [0] which was struck down eventually - but still, people considered that a good enough idea to propose, successfully vote and implement that?!?) to stick it to The Man (or something). [0] I don't care too much about the specifics, so not naming and shaming anybody, but the source is: https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-or-restrict-solar-panels/ https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-...

hutzlibu 3y ago
"All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening." Yes, but still all it takes is one crazy guy at the wrong position and time. I am not ok with that and rather would have all the nukes directed towards the sky against asteroids. And I am also not ok with producing tanks and artillery instead of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. But it is, what it is. Too many short sighted people in position of power.

koheripbal 3y ago

We were lucky nuclear war didn't happen, and it still might. I think the risk of nuclear war is higher now, with more nations having more weapons, fewer treaties preventing profession, and an increasingly multipolar power dynamic in international affairs.

spacephysics 3y ago
I highly recommend this video: https://youtu.be/jG8LJ0QkBo4 https://youtu.be/jG8LJ0QkBo4 I too thought we were closer to nuclear war now. But really with US second strike capability, and the fact that many of the nuclear warhead numbers don’t take into account usable missiles, among other factors, makes me sleep a bit easier at night.
mikrotikker 3y ago
Yea there currently exists a plausible risk of the Taliban taking control of an ailing Pakistan and its 11 nukes. Thank you Mr Kissenger

willcipriano 3y ago

> But wasn't that always the case? Nope and it isn't the case now. End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, pretty much all of them have/had them. My personal guess is that egos are so big that people can't imagine a world after them so it's easier to say the world is going to end.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, The different tech that can make good on the apocalypse are a relatively recent addition to the equation. We've had the ability to lay waste to the planet for just a handful of generations.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Another feature of human end of the world predictions is its always different this time.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    Okay. So make the equation equate. How could humanity make most of the planet uninhabitable 1000 years ago?
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Lots of reasons, by having sex or praying the wrong way were common. The wrong way being the way some other out group does it. Now we can end the world by doing things like driving the wrong kind of car (but not by flying around the world to "broaden the mind" as in group members like to do that). You can even buy indulgences.
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        None of those things are responsive to the question: What existed 1000 years ago that humanity could use to make the planet uninhabitable? If you don't have an answer to the actual question at hand, it's okay to say so.

vondur 3y ago

China doesn't care one bit about climate change. China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

adrianN 3y ago
China's CO2/kWh is going down reasonably quickly for a growing economy. They could do a lot better of course (couldn't we all?), but they're not just building coal plants; they're also building renewables and nuclear. "China does X Y-times more than other countries" is a headline that can be recycled for almost every topic. There are 1.4 billion people in China.
hutzlibu 3y ago
I think they do care (they are also number 1 in rollout of most renewables), but they care more for social stability, that they can only sustain with high economic growth.
helij 3y ago
How to reconcile the above article with this[0]? [0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

Buttons840 3y ago

War has indeed always threatened to take away our children's futures. Yet the possibility of peace is ever present. The difference with climate change is the "peaceful" analog is vanishing. Humanity has always been able to choose peace. But we may soon not be able to choose to live on a healthy planet.