3 ms·
Soon it will be hard to find reasons to be alive. Can’t go outside because it’s 120 degrees. Can’t go for a hike because of the smoke and wildfires. Can’t drive
by voisin 3y ago
Soon it will be hard to find reasons to be alive. Can’t go outside because it’s 120 degrees. Can’t go for a hike because of the smoke and wildfires. Can’t drive to the store because of the flooding. Can’t buy food because the crops failed.
- RandomLensman 3y agoSeriously, if you believe that to happen soon, then it will happen irrespective of anything we do now because that change is already in the system. At that point, not enjoying the time now as much as possible would be a waste - so no reason to reduce anything anymore.
- convolvatron 3y agoonly if you care about what happens to the next generation
- RandomLensman 3y agoHow much improvement would there even be for the next generation? Marginal - and the unborn don't get a voice.
- eropple 3y agoDoc Smith would find that assertion embarrassing, I think. The good news is that across the world, this sort of hand-flapping is being ignored. In reality, we have already begun doing the right thing. We're already averting the worst-case scenario. But that isn't a repair job. We're slowly the rate of getting-worse. We have to do more to arrest that, to get to a net-zero state and then a net-negative state, because we can't predict that whoever we stick with the check will then be in as advantageous a place as we are to pull that brake. This has immediate and short-term benefits even if one is too selfish to care about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Within living memory, rivers in the United States were too foul in which to swim and now, for the most part, they're not. Cities in the West were choked with smog and now, for the most part, they're not. And bringing it back to the topic at hand: cruise ships foul the ports they land in; you can smell it on shore and the trash they leave in their wake is obvious, and as a side benefit they also have extremely disproportionate climate impact. "What if...we didn't do that?" is not a difficult question and not one to rend one's shirt over. Doing the right thing is better for us, now, as well as for our descendants.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI am not the doomer, I was outlining the consequences of a doomerist position (and there is indeed historical precedent on how people reacted to impeding doom like the plague). I'm aware of current progress (worked there myself a bit) and past successes on environmental issues.
- eropple 3y agoWhat 'voisin described is the near-future state for many places and and in some places the current state. It isn't remotely controversial to describe our current El Nino situation as median twenty years' hence. The only reason to trot out "well if you believe that, why would we do anything at all?" is to discourage action because it isn't perfect.
- RandomLensman 3y agoIs it so hard to imagine that you need to campaign in ways that work across large sections of society and around the globe? Some places somewhere will have this near future state, others will not.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago[dead]
- osigurdson 3y agoThis article is seemingly more about NOx, not CO2. It should be relatively easy to address the NOx problem as technology exists. I think if the activists narrowly focused on this, they might actually be able to get somewhere.
- ianburrell 3y agoI’m glad they are focusing on other pollutants. Lots of people go from ships pollute a lot to they produce a lot of CO2, when they really make other pollutants and are pretty efficient for CO2. Article also mentioned sulfur oxides. Those should get better as ships are forced to convert to low sulfur fuel,
- osigurdson 3y agoConcretely, the activists should chant: “GT DLE LNG” (drum beat) “GT DLE LNG” (drum beat) “GT DLE LNG” All of the local air quality concerns would disappear if their protest is effective. GT : Gas Turbine DLE: Dry / low emission LNG: liquefied natural gas