4 ms·

Zero emissions sounds like a silly goal anyway, 80/20 and all that.

Manfred 2y ago
It's about zero direct emissions in densely populated areas. It's to prevent people from sitting in their own poop, so to say.
atoav 2y ago
Tell me you have no idea of climate science without telling me you have no idea of climate science. The zero net emission (NZE) scenario was chosen because of the effect that it would have on the climate, not because some "guy wants to be a perfectionist". See also: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-scenario-nze https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/... The climate is a complex matter and we globally have many bright people on the problem. If you see yourself armchairing on that topic, you might consider that you just don't know enough.
- _fizz_buzz_ 2y ago
  We technically need negative emissions starting today. The zero-emissions goal by 2050 is already the very generous compromise.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Exactly. It is a bit like doing an emergency break with a train that is about to roll into a pit filled with lava. You need to break way ahead to avoid the lava pit. 80/20 breaking still lands you in the lava pit. And the later you decide to break, the harder that breaking will have to be. Until at some point breaking alone is no longer enough. That is where we are.
- toenail 2y ago
  You had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cost with a disregard for any negative effects.
  - omnimus 2y ago
    These goals are what should limit the negative effects as much as possible. Its exact opposite of “disregard for any negative effect”. Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists and experts.
    - toenail 2y ago
      > Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - threatofrain 2y ago
        > Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific." That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
        toenail 2y ago
        We weren't talking about medicine, but if the medical research the consensus is based on was all funded by one entity, no, I wouldn't trust it.
        abenga 2y ago
        Which "one entity" is funding climate change research?
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Your comment would communicatie the same thing without the first sentence.
  - atoav 2y ago
    You are right, I was unnecessarily harsh here, due to my own frustration that in 2025 people still can't grasp the current levels of scientific discourse on climate change — despite an abundance of good material on the matter. Maybe 20 years ago when things didn't look as overwhelmingly clear I would have reacted differently, but now it just feels exhausting.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    You can not tone-police pro-climate posts while ignoring all the uncivil knee-jerk anti-climate posts that are full of insulting language about progressives and contain endless strawman arguments.

It's about zero direct emissions in densely populated areas. It's to prevent people from sitting in their own poop, so to say.

atoav 2y ago

Tell me you have no idea of climate science without telling me you have no idea of climate science. The zero net emission (NZE) scenario was chosen because of the effect that it would have on the climate, not because some "guy wants to be a perfectionist". See also: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-scenario-nze https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/... The climate is a complex matter and we globally have many bright people on the problem. If you see yourself armchairing on that topic, you might consider that you just don't know enough.

_fizz_buzz_ 2y ago
We technically need negative emissions starting today. The zero-emissions goal by 2050 is already the very generous compromise.
- atoav 2y ago
  Exactly. It is a bit like doing an emergency break with a train that is about to roll into a pit filled with lava. You need to break way ahead to avoid the lava pit. 80/20 breaking still lands you in the lava pit. And the later you decide to break, the harder that breaking will have to be. Until at some point breaking alone is no longer enough. That is where we are.
toenail 2y ago
You had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cost with a disregard for any negative effects.
- omnimus 2y ago
  These goals are what should limit the negative effects as much as possible. Its exact opposite of “disregard for any negative effect”. Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists and experts.
  - toenail 2y ago
    > Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      > Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific. Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific." That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
      - toenail 2y ago
        We weren't talking about medicine, but if the medical research the consensus is based on was all funded by one entity, no, I wouldn't trust it.
        abenga 2y ago
        Which "one entity" is funding climate change research?
AlecSchueler 2y ago
Your comment would communicatie the same thing without the first sentence.
- atoav 2y ago
  You are right, I was unnecessarily harsh here, due to my own frustration that in 2025 people still can't grasp the current levels of scientific discourse on climate change — despite an abundance of good material on the matter. Maybe 20 years ago when things didn't look as overwhelmingly clear I would have reacted differently, but now it just feels exhausting.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  You can not tone-police pro-climate posts while ignoring all the uncivil knee-jerk anti-climate posts that are full of insulting language about progressives and contain endless strawman arguments.