7 ms·
You realize that would cause countless death _today_ if you don’t replace the oil with something else? People will starve, become homeless, and maybe anarchy wi
by huntertwo 3y ago
You realize that would cause countless death _today_ if you don’t replace the oil with something else? People will starve, become homeless, and maybe anarchy will reign. Not just in the developed world but globally.
- edhelas 3y agoSounds like what will actually happen _tomorrow_ if we don't act radically _now_.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNothing of that sort will happen "tomorrow", and even if true it would not justify genocidal policies today.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoThe true genocidal policy is to continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere in increasing amounts. Personally, I feel it is more honest for us to deal with the outcomes of what "we" are doing now, rather than just leaving it for our children to deal with.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThe future is fundamentally uncertain. Climate change will be addressed but not by corporate welfare programs like net zero nor by impoverishing rich populations. The idea that the simplistic socio-economic models/pathways are in any way right or predictive was just a fantasy.
- netsharc 3y ago> The future is fundamentally uncertain. Climate change will be addressed but not by corporate welfare programs like net zero nor by impoverishing rich populations. This is very wishful thinking. It's like a doc telling you your body is collapsing due to lung cancer, you need to stop smoking, and you answering "the future is fundemantally uncertain, I'm sure something will come along and figure out this cancer for me, got a light?"
- nwellinghoff 3y agoI think he implying nature will solve the problem regardless. I tend to agree and it’s probably not going to be pleasant for all of us.
- netsharc 3y agoYeah, the narrative needs to be changed from saving the planet to saving civilization, but sadly a return to say the climate of the 70's (where the winters were snowy and summers weren't weeks of deadly 120 F weather) is even less realistic as people wanting to have a "America Great Again" (with current tech, wahey let's keep waiting for that deus ex machina!).
- RandomLensman 3y agoIf you take the physics as given, all we can say that is if nothing different from the model is happening, things will be bad. The nature of "different" is, however, extremely broad. Wishful thinking is that expensive sacrifices for the far future will be politically feasible while at the same time people need to already mitigate the effects of climate change. There need to be way better policy and technological packages than now.
- concordDance 3y agoBut we aren't even close to lung collapse level predictions. AFAIK worst case predictions for climate change death aren't above a billion life years.
- amrocha 3y agoNot even our children. We will deal with it in 5 years. We're past the fucking around phase, now it's time to find out in increasingly large amounts every year.
- zx8080 3y agoJust to be sure, are you proposing killing people today so that they don't die tomorrow?
- edhelas 3y agoBecause eating less meat, stop taking the plane, reducing our consumption level, replacing cars with bikes and trains and other stuff like that seems radical to you ?
- jmondi 3y agoThe OP you replied to implied that we need to completely tank the economy to do anything. It just “stop taking the plane” and “eating less meat”.
- edhelas 3y agoReducing massively our meat consumption might have some effects on some part of our economy indeed, same if we choose two divide by 2, 3, 4 the number of cars we're producing.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNo more air travel is very radical!
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoThey may never explicitly admit this, but proponents of "just stop using oil" do intend the mass death outcome. Of course, they have nothing but Good Intentions, these people believe that a steep drop-off in population is inevitable, and they'd rather effect it sooner than later.
- ricardobeat 3y agoIt’s extremely depressing that you can’t have more than a couple paragraphs’ discussion without extremism kicking in. No, thinking people shouldn’t drive a 2-ton vehicle for 40km to buy 200g of Wagyu every other day is not the same as planning mass murder. Your comment is inflammatory and delusional.
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago>people shouldn’t drive a 2-ton vehicle for 40km to buy 200g of Wagyu every other day Your example describes a fantasy. The vast majority of people do not travel anywhere close to 40km to buy groceries. Even in a car-centric country like America, the average driver travels just 4km. If someone has to travel 40km or more to get to a grocery store, it's because they live rural. People who travel that far for groceries do not buy 200g of wagyu at a time. They typically only go once or a few times per month and they stock up. The population of people who live rural is very small. People who live rural are also quite poor. The carbon emissions, environmental impact, and fuel consumption of this population of people is so unbelievably small, it's irrelevant. But, you are targeting this small population of poor people. No wonder you get so much pushback, or "extremism". I guess poor people defending their way of life is extreme.
- briansm 3y agoHere in the UK, if I had to travel 'just 4km' then I wouldn't take a car. In any case it's the other 50% of journeys that are 4km+ (20% of journeys are 10+ miles) that are the problem: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc... The USA is a young country, built from the ground up around the automobile. Undoing that both physically and psychologically is just not possible in my opinion.
- marginallen 3y ago[flagged]
- gmm1990 3y agoI don't think the op said stop using oil for productive uses. I assume they'd be against any large electric car too. People in rich/not poor nations use too many resources and I'd say even the vast majority aren't actually for building homes or producing food or contributing to making those things efficient/safe/redundant.
- thinkingtoilet 3y agoWhat do you think will happen if the temperatures keep rising, the oceans keep rising, and currently livable areas of land that hold billions of people become inhabitable?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoThanos is that you? Wanting to kill people now, to hopefully save the environment in the future.
- Davidzheng 3y agoYou have to consider how many people will die in the future from climate change
- the_optimist 3y agoThis sort of extremist desperation plants the seeds for justifying horrific, subhuman destruction. There are no limits. This is beyond dangerous, it’s foolish and cancerous.
- concordDance 3y agoIndeed, we need real order of magnitude numbers here of deaths from energy scarcity vs deaths from future climate change. Otherwise we're just blowing hot air around.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jmondi 3y agoThe environment will be fine. They want to kill people now in order to hopefully save people from dying in the future. How this is not a parody is beyond me.
- supportengineer 3y ago[flagged]
- LispSporks22 3y ago> People will starve, become homeless, and maybe anarchy will reign. Not just in the developed world but globally. The irony of this comment.
- mempko 3y agoThis is only true if you literally crash the economy and do nothing else. What we can do is instead shift priorities, like food and housing security, while reducing the economy by not doing useless, pointless things. Do we really need all these things we buy at the store now?
- huntertwo 3y agoWe cannot build windmills, solar farms, and nuclear energy plants overnight. We cannot stand up new buildings and create local food supply chains overnight. I was responding to the proposal to cut oil production by 50%-75%, which would be great, but must be done gradually so that our current economic systems have time to respond, i.e. not crash. Maybe we can announce a ban on pork, beef, plastics, TVs, consumption, etc but it should not be done overnight for the same reasons.
- mempko 3y agoWhat you have to do is make it worthwhile for people. Steve Keen's idea of a dual price is imo a great idea. How it works is everything has both a dollar price and a carbon price. Everyone in society gets the same amount of carbon credits. You can sell these credits for dollars and vice versa. Those who use a LOT of carbon have to buy them from those that have the credits. What this does is create a wealth distribution down while at the same time capping carbon usage. Those who use very little carbon benefit because they can buy things they previously couldn't, while those that use a lot are punished. Since the vast majority of people are at the lower end of carbon usage, I believe this would be a very popular program.
- supportengineer 3y agoThat’s at risk of happening either way.