3 ms·

The argument to immediately stop burning fossil fuels is a radical position which few take seriously. But you seem to be arguing that it'd be pointless in the

The argument to immediately stop burning fossil fuels is a radical position which few take seriously. But you seem to be arguing that it'd be pointless in the same way that pressing the break in the immediate moment before a car accident is futile. Sure it might not help a lot, but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse.

louwrentius 3y ago
They clarified they mean the opposite: to illustrate how dire the situation is.
tejohnso 3y ago
I'm not arguing a position for or against action, I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims, and I'm pointing it out because there is a long history of downplaying the severity of the situation when it comes to this issue. Whether it's pointless or not is up for debate. Your brake pressing analogy could be slightly off. Rather than being in the moment before the car accident, we could be in the moment just after driving off of a cliff. In that case, brake pressing is indeed futile. But I think the system we're in is too complex to know for sure, and I'm all for people wanting to say that they are interested in doing anything they can. I'm also all for people actually taking action rather than just saying they are on board with the idea. Also...just do nothing if that's your preference.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  > I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims I believe you misunderstood the quote. "Would only get worse" is a set phrase that means getting worse is inevitable. The "only" means that no other outcome is possible. It's sort of an intensified version of "would get worse" in that it's more definite. So "it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels" means that if we continue burning these fuels, there is no chance we will avoid the consequences. It does not mean that the only way to have the problem is to keep burning fossil fuels.
bgirard 3y ago
It's not a great analogy. The possible downsides to breaking before a car are slim. The downside to immediately stopping burning fossil fuels are huge including disrupting the global economy, life critical heating/cooling in cold/warm climates and basically modern life globally. We could barely lock down for a pandemic. Imagine telling someone (or entire winter cities) they will likely freeze to death today to reduce emissions. That is not comparable to hitting the breaks to lessen a crash.
- neerd 3y ago
  The downsides of not doing anything are far, far larger. We risk the total collapse of our biosphere if we don’t stop.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  > The downside to immediately stopping burning fossil fuels are huge including disrupting the global economy, life critical heating/cooling in cold/warm climates and basically modern life globally. That's why I said that's not an option. Stopping fossil fuels would be the same as stopping the car instantaneously - it would be a brand new car crash.
  - bgirard 3y ago
    > That's why I said that's not an option. >> but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse. That statement confused me. I don't understand your position then.

louwrentius 3y ago

They clarified they mean the opposite: to illustrate how dire the situation is.

tejohnso 3y ago

I'm not arguing a position for or against action, I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims, and I'm pointing it out because there is a long history of downplaying the severity of the situation when it comes to this issue. Whether it's pointless or not is up for debate. Your brake pressing analogy could be slightly off. Rather than being in the moment before the car accident, we could be in the moment just after driving off of a cliff. In that case, brake pressing is indeed futile. But I think the system we're in is too complex to know for sure, and I'm all for people wanting to say that they are interested in doing anything they can. I'm also all for people actually taking action rather than just saying they are on board with the idea. Also...just do nothing if that's your preference.

adrianmonk 3y ago
> I'm pointing out that things are worse than the quote claims I believe you misunderstood the quote. "Would only get worse" is a set phrase that means getting worse is inevitable. The "only" means that no other outcome is possible. It's sort of an intensified version of "would get worse" in that it's more definite. So "it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels" means that if we continue burning these fuels, there is no chance we will avoid the consequences. It does not mean that the only way to have the problem is to keep burning fossil fuels.

bgirard 3y ago

It's not a great analogy. The possible downsides to breaking before a car are slim. The downside to immediately stopping burning fossil fuels are huge including disrupting the global economy, life critical heating/cooling in cold/warm climates and basically modern life globally. We could barely lock down for a pandemic. Imagine telling someone (or entire winter cities) they will likely freeze to death today to reduce emissions. That is not comparable to hitting the breaks to lessen a crash.

neerd 3y ago
The downsides of not doing anything are far, far larger. We risk the total collapse of our biosphere if we don’t stop.
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
> The downside to immediately stopping burning fossil fuels are huge including disrupting the global economy, life critical heating/cooling in cold/warm climates and basically modern life globally. That's why I said that's not an option. Stopping fossil fuels would be the same as stopping the car instantaneously - it would be a brand new car crash.
- bgirard 3y ago
  > That's why I said that's not an option. >> but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse. That statement confused me. I don't understand your position then.