2 ms·

Global CO2 emissions need to be reduced by 45% very soon. Like by the end of the decade soon. Less than seven years. There is no political solution. There’s

Global CO2 emissions need to be reduced by 45% very soon. Like by the end of the decade soon. Less than seven years. There is no political solution. There’s no hope of any government taking any meaningful action. It’s all words and greenwashing. A substantial reduction in consumption for everyone? Blame companies all you like, but companies don’t sell what people aren’t buying. Consumers around the world aren’t going to scale back consumption by double digit percentages in less than a decade. They’ll revolt against anyone who tried to make them. There’s no technical solution that can come on line fast enough. Renewable energy is just not going to scale up scale that fast. Especially not when governments are still subsidising fossil fuel, opening new coal mines, and coal power plants. So what’s left? You can hope that the ‘worst case’ scenarios aren’t that bad, (and hope even harder that the scenarios the official reports deliberately omit the worst of the worst case scenarios, never happen). And even in the best case scenarios if we don’t reduce carbon emissions we’re going to see famine, pestilence and war. Maybe in the end war will accomplish what politics couldn’t. If we destroy enough of the world’s economies it might be enough to stop all the ice melting completely.

bushbaba 3y ago
More likely is a huge population decline from cost of living being too great for most to have kids.
jerojero 3y ago
Well, I know in France there was a citizens convention for the climate that developed citizens-led initiatives such as banning short flights and so on. That's significant. When you say "consumers would revolt against these policies", would they? Because representative citizens assemblies pretty much prove you otherwise, these are not political activists that got together to push an agenda; it's the result of a representative (through sortition) sample of the french people. Maybe in America things would be different, but I honestly wouldn't say with certainty that it is so. Although for the citizens convention for the climate in France from the ~180 proposals only 30ish were approved by congress. So this shows the tension between what people might want and what congress is willing to pass; probably because congress is under a much higher pressure from lobbying, so they're much less bold. But really, my point here is that there are political alternatives. These are not very well known but they're very much real. I know climate movements and activists in other countries, such as Norway, are very much aware of these and these are the policies they want to push for. So I would say, really, there's a big difference between not knowing and not being involved and actually not any viable alternatives to the problem being out there. I would say the first step is awareness and is involvement. Literally, just talking about it in a serious manner and not simply going "ugh, but politics is so useless!". Ask yourself why and what is being done and what people are trying out there. Because a lot is being tried, particularly in Europe. Just get involved locally and bring these ideas forward. Basically what I'm saying is we should be pushing for a "let us actually decide for ourselves" movement rather than specifically something about climate. And this I believe is something a lot of people can agree on, from the current polarized political spectrum. As there is a very real crisis of representation in our democracies. No one likes politicians.
- coryrc 3y ago
  California voted to build high speed rail, they're spending $35B for nowhere to nowhere. If built with Shinkansen efficiency, they'd get 1000 km for the same money, more than enough for San Diego to San Francisco to Sacramento. There's simply too much bureaucracy to overcome, too many fingers in the pot, too many laws blocking expediency. The USA is a broken cruise liner full speed ahead to climate destruction and it won't be stopped without blood.

bushbaba 3y ago

More likely is a huge population decline from cost of living being too great for most to have kids.

jerojero 3y ago

Well, I know in France there was a citizens convention for the climate that developed citizens-led initiatives such as banning short flights and so on. That's significant. When you say "consumers would revolt against these policies", would they? Because representative citizens assemblies pretty much prove you otherwise, these are not political activists that got together to push an agenda; it's the result of a representative (through sortition) sample of the french people. Maybe in America things would be different, but I honestly wouldn't say with certainty that it is so. Although for the citizens convention for the climate in France from the ~180 proposals only 30ish were approved by congress. So this shows the tension between what people might want and what congress is willing to pass; probably because congress is under a much higher pressure from lobbying, so they're much less bold. But really, my point here is that there are political alternatives. These are not very well known but they're very much real. I know climate movements and activists in other countries, such as Norway, are very much aware of these and these are the policies they want to push for. So I would say, really, there's a big difference between not knowing and not being involved and actually not any viable alternatives to the problem being out there. I would say the first step is awareness and is involvement. Literally, just talking about it in a serious manner and not simply going "ugh, but politics is so useless!". Ask yourself why and what is being done and what people are trying out there. Because a lot is being tried, particularly in Europe. Just get involved locally and bring these ideas forward. Basically what I'm saying is we should be pushing for a "let us actually decide for ourselves" movement rather than specifically something about climate. And this I believe is something a lot of people can agree on, from the current polarized political spectrum. As there is a very real crisis of representation in our democracies. No one likes politicians.

coryrc 3y ago
California voted to build high speed rail, they're spending $35B for nowhere to nowhere. If built with Shinkansen efficiency, they'd get 1000 km for the same money, more than enough for San Diego to San Francisco to Sacramento. There's simply too much bureaucracy to overcome, too many fingers in the pot, too many laws blocking expediency. The USA is a broken cruise liner full speed ahead to climate destruction and it won't be stopped without blood.