4 ms·

We also like making sure there’s sufficient energy to power the world.

henriquez 3y ago
How dare you. We should go back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels of carbon output because mass starvation is a great ideal, also cheaper than Ozempic.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  The world's carbon output is multiple times higher than it was in the 90s. We keep getting exponentially worse each year so we can have cheap flat screen tvs and email jobs.
  - henriquez 3y ago
    The solution is to virtue signal by restricting Western countries’ output while allowing our manufacturing partners in Asia and third world countries to run roughshod over the environment. /s If climate was actually a priority for anyone in power in the U.S.A. or Europe they would embargo countries that don’t meet emissions standards. All this stuff about shifting blame on to individual consumers is eco theater and equivalent to the TSA taking your toothpaste.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Some sort of carbon tax with sanctions/embargo against countries that don’t implement the carbon tax seems like it would be the serious response. Some burning of fossil fuels might be necessary, but we shouldn’t perturb the market by allowing companies to externalize their environmental costs on the rest of the planet.
londons_explore 3y ago
Lets be honest, if humans were to put Manhattan project levels of effort in, we could decarbonize everything in a year. Turns out no country wants to put all that effort in when the alternative is using 'free' oil from underground.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Doubtful. Replacing everything part running on fossil fuels within a year, including the infrastructure, is probably just not feasible.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Nobody wants to sacrifice. That's why nothing is changing. The masses have this delusional view that we could decarbonize in such a way that only billionaires feel the squeeze, and their lives improve while also becoming carbon free. If we want rapid change, we have to be willing to make enormous personal sacrifice.

How dare you. We should go back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels of carbon output because mass starvation is a great ideal, also cheaper than Ozempic.

MSFT_Edging 3y ago
The world's carbon output is multiple times higher than it was in the 90s. We keep getting exponentially worse each year so we can have cheap flat screen tvs and email jobs.
- henriquez 3y ago
  The solution is to virtue signal by restricting Western countries’ output while allowing our manufacturing partners in Asia and third world countries to run roughshod over the environment. /s If climate was actually a priority for anyone in power in the U.S.A. or Europe they would embargo countries that don’t meet emissions standards. All this stuff about shifting blame on to individual consumers is eco theater and equivalent to the TSA taking your toothpaste.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Some sort of carbon tax with sanctions/embargo against countries that don’t implement the carbon tax seems like it would be the serious response. Some burning of fossil fuels might be necessary, but we shouldn’t perturb the market by allowing companies to externalize their environmental costs on the rest of the planet.

londons_explore 3y ago

Lets be honest, if humans were to put Manhattan project levels of effort in, we could decarbonize everything in a year. Turns out no country wants to put all that effort in when the alternative is using 'free' oil from underground.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Doubtful. Replacing everything part running on fossil fuels within a year, including the infrastructure, is probably just not feasible.
Workaccount2 3y ago
Nobody wants to sacrifice. That's why nothing is changing. The masses have this delusional view that we could decarbonize in such a way that only billionaires feel the squeeze, and their lives improve while also becoming carbon free. If we want rapid change, we have to be willing to make enormous personal sacrifice.