3 ms·
I think that is an uncharitable reading of the person you are replying to. I don't think they want to wave a magic wand and stop all oil/coal tomorrow. But inve
by tasty_freeze 3y ago
I think that is an uncharitable reading of the person you are replying to. I don't think they want to wave a magic wand and stop all oil/coal tomorrow. But investing time/money/policy to move away from fossil fuels is something we could have been doing since at least the Kyoto Protocol and yet we are doing next to nothing, and in fact are still subsidizing oil companies.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago> I don't think they want to wave a magic wand and stop all oil/coal tomorrow. Tomorrow is far too late. We should have started reducing our dependencies on oil since the 1970s.
- sanderjd 3y agoRespectfully, I don't think it is an uncharitable reading at all. It is a response to a literal reading of the question "we just need to stop mining and drilling fossil fuels, how is this not obvious?". It is an obvious idea - and it's totally fine to put out obvious ideas! - but that's also why there are so many well known and top of mind reasons that it is not the solution to our predicament. To me, this is like a new student of algebra who thinks, "division is defined for all values of the denominator except zero, an obvious solution to that special case is that it should be defined for zero as well". It's an interesting idea for a student to have, but the reasons it doesn't work are very well known.