3 ms·

I would only disagree in one part of this: >The problem isn't "fossil fuel interests", I would say it's not "just" fossil fuel interests. But they are playin

I would only disagree in one part of this: >The problem isn't "fossil fuel interests", I would say it's not "just" fossil fuel interests. But they are playing a huge part in this - particularly in sowing misinformation about clean technologies, and how being carbon neutral will mean the end of your life, or that some kid in a country you've never been to will be digging stuff out of the ground for your EV/solar panel. Most of which isn't actually true (or is a minority case), but they have successfully made everyone think that it is. I actually read people on here (who I'm assuming are intelligent) last week saying they were not going to give up any part of their current lifestyle to reduce emissions, so you're right in that respect. It's like dealing with stroppy 8 year-olds in many cases. But I do think that it's still worth countries who can do (democratic ones) going ahead anyway. The only way will be to do this, otherwise it'll be game over.

midoridensha 3y ago
It's game over. >I actually read people on here (who I'm assuming are intelligent) last week saying they were not going to give up any part of their current lifestyle to reduce emissions, so you're right in that respect. It's like dealing with stroppy 8 year-olds in many cases. Exactly. And these aren't people in authoritarian countries; there are people in democratic nations. If politicians try to hard to push these people to give up their current lifestyles, they'll be voted out. >But I do think that it's still worth countries who can do (democratic ones) going ahead anyway. What we're going to get is some smaller, rich, democratic nations like Netherlands and Finland making real changes, and not making any significant change planet-wide because these places are small and have little population compared to India, China, and USA. Meanwhile, Americans will still be driving everywhere in 6000-pound SUVs (some of which might become EVs, but lots of EVs still means lots of electricity needed, which has to come from somewhere) and heating and cooling their huge 5000 square foot (464 square meters) homes, and China will still be running coal-fired power plants and probably building even more so their people can live more like Americans, etc. etc. I simply see no way that you're going to get most of humanity to agree to the degree of changes in energy use and emissions output needed within the next 5 years to head off a climate catastrophe. Making significant and meaningful changes in 100 years isn't going to help because it's going to be much too late. Basically, we're like the Titanic, 30 seconds before it hits the iceberg: there's simply no practical way to change course at this point. The best thing to do is stop arguing how to avoid the iceberg, and start talking about who gets the lifeboats.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  > The best thing to do is stop arguing how to avoid the iceberg, and start talking about who gets the lifeboats. Obviously the people with the most money and/or the biggest guns. I don't think the outcome is anywhere near as binary as you suggest, and there is a way to reduce emissions while increasing or maintaining living standards; you pay the price of development to make renewable options the best choice.

midoridensha 3y ago

It's game over. >I actually read people on here (who I'm assuming are intelligent) last week saying they were not going to give up any part of their current lifestyle to reduce emissions, so you're right in that respect. It's like dealing with stroppy 8 year-olds in many cases. Exactly. And these aren't people in authoritarian countries; there are people in democratic nations. If politicians try to hard to push these people to give up their current lifestyles, they'll be voted out. >But I do think that it's still worth countries who can do (democratic ones) going ahead anyway. What we're going to get is some smaller, rich, democratic nations like Netherlands and Finland making real changes, and not making any significant change planet-wide because these places are small and have little population compared to India, China, and USA. Meanwhile, Americans will still be driving everywhere in 6000-pound SUVs (some of which might become EVs, but lots of EVs still means lots of electricity needed, which has to come from somewhere) and heating and cooling their huge 5000 square foot (464 square meters) homes, and China will still be running coal-fired power plants and probably building even more so their people can live more like Americans, etc. etc. I simply see no way that you're going to get most of humanity to agree to the degree of changes in energy use and emissions output needed within the next 5 years to head off a climate catastrophe. Making significant and meaningful changes in 100 years isn't going to help because it's going to be much too late. Basically, we're like the Titanic, 30 seconds before it hits the iceberg: there's simply no practical way to change course at this point. The best thing to do is stop arguing how to avoid the iceberg, and start talking about who gets the lifeboats.

jabradoodle 3y ago
> The best thing to do is stop arguing how to avoid the iceberg, and start talking about who gets the lifeboats. Obviously the people with the most money and/or the biggest guns. I don't think the outcome is anywhere near as binary as you suggest, and there is a way to reduce emissions while increasing or maintaining living standards; you pay the price of development to make renewable options the best choice.