5 ms·

The technology to massively reduce carbon dioxide emissions has existed for a long time. Coal power plants could have been replaced with natural gas much soone

The technology to massively reduce carbon dioxide emissions has existed for a long time. Coal power plants could have been replaced with natural gas much sooner. We could have actually spent the last 50 years building nuclear power plants instead of trying to get rid of them. In transportation, all we had to do was unwind the disastrous expansion of the automobile and return to superior technologies that preceded it, like trains, trolleys, busses, and bicycles. Buildings could have been made more insulated and efficient using the exact same tools we've had for generations.

quonn 3y ago
> Coal power plants could have been replaced with natural gas much sooner. Gas is better but still terrible and chances are that this would have just slowed down the urgency and therefore nobody would have acted on anything. We would end up at exactly the same point just 50 years later. > We could have actually spent the last 50 years building nuclear power plants instead of trying to get rid of them. So? The major force for getting rid of them (rightfully in my opinion) was the Green party (in Germany, similar groups elsewhere). Do you want to imply they did this in order to prop up the fossil industry or because there was insufficient public knowledge? Quite simply the priorities of the movement were different in the 70s and even 80s because climate change as a major issue had not yet sufficiently made it into the collective consciousness even of the green party. > In transportation, all we had to do was unwind the disastrous expansion of the automobile and return to superior technologies that preceded it, like trains, trolleys, busses, and bicycles. You may think so, but most people disagree that these technologies are superior. In almost every imaginable way they are worse - except for their ecological footprint. The only exception being big cities. Rest assured that no majority of the population will give that up and so the car will remain the primary means of transport even in 50 years. All we can hope for is that it will be produced mostly carbon neutral.

quonn 3y ago

> Coal power plants could have been replaced with natural gas much sooner. Gas is better but still terrible and chances are that this would have just slowed down the urgency and therefore nobody would have acted on anything. We would end up at exactly the same point just 50 years later. > We could have actually spent the last 50 years building nuclear power plants instead of trying to get rid of them. So? The major force for getting rid of them (rightfully in my opinion) was the Green party (in Germany, similar groups elsewhere). Do you want to imply they did this in order to prop up the fossil industry or because there was insufficient public knowledge? Quite simply the priorities of the movement were different in the 70s and even 80s because climate change as a major issue had not yet sufficiently made it into the collective consciousness even of the green party. > In transportation, all we had to do was unwind the disastrous expansion of the automobile and return to superior technologies that preceded it, like trains, trolleys, busses, and bicycles. You may think so, but most people disagree that these technologies are superior. In almost every imaginable way they are worse - except for their ecological footprint. The only exception being big cities. Rest assured that no majority of the population will give that up and so the car will remain the primary means of transport even in 50 years. All we can hope for is that it will be produced mostly carbon neutral.