2 ms·
Cool. Now prove that a hardline unrealistic zero emissions by 2045 won’t lead to a worse environmental. Because I think lack of food, lack of trucks for maint
by SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Cool.
Now prove that a hardline unrealistic zero emissions by 2045 won’t lead to a worse environmental.
Because I think lack of food, lack of trucks for maintenance, lack of locally produced clean water, and lack of tourism will result in negative outcomes.
I am an automotive EE, we’re designing trucks now for 32-34 model year release, spoiler, they’re gas and diesel.
- silverquiet 2y agoIt really does seem like an impossible predicament, doesn't it? Our current practices will destroy us, but so will ceasing them. It makes it pretty hard to hold back the nihilism.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> prove that a hardline unrealistic zero emissions by 2045 won’t lead to a worse environmental One, not how the law works. But also, not how debate works? Prove that not doing this won’t lead to worse outcomes. You can’t. It’s in the future. > lack of food, lack of trucks for maintenance, lack of locally produced clean water, and lack of tourism How does this result from zero emissions? The food is grown there or imported. Onshore aquifers can be pumped with electricity, like they are already. (Worst case, import.) And not sure how this hits tourism, either. > am an automotive EE, we’re designing trucks now for 32-34 model year release, spoiler, they’re gas and diesel Of course. Nobody is phasing out gas/diesel trucks in the 2030s on the mainland. But this is about Hawaii. Phasing out fossil fuels—of which they make none—makes sense on multiple levels.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago> Phasing out fossil fuels—of which they make none—makes sense on multiple levels. You should’ve led with this. Saved me the rest of the reading.