4 ms·

I'm not sure how you create a better world than one that has sustainable infrastructure, livable cities, healthy children, preserved nature and wildlife (or jus

by milch 2y ago

I'm not sure how you create a better world than one that has sustainable infrastructure, livable cities, healthy children, preserved nature and wildlife (or just rainforests as the cartoon puts it...), clean water and air, ... Maybe net zero is a waste of time because in 20 years we will crack cold fusion and have infinite energy and then literally suck pollutants out of the air. Or maybe we don't and we wish we'd spent the last 20 years not razing forests, polluting air and water, and so on

gottorf 2y ago
> I'm not sure how you create a better world I go into more depth in my other comment, but the short version is that building everything nice that you listed takes energy, and Net Zero just doesn't have a viable story for how to provide that energy economically and reliably at the scale that we need. > we wish we'd spent the last 20 years not razing forests, polluting air and water, and so on You're painting a false equivalence. Continuing to use fossil fuels doesn't mean chopping down the Amazon and belching foul smoke everywhere. Similarly, building wind and solar doesn't automatically mean you are a good steward of the environment; one could just as easily raze a forest to mine coal as to build a solar farm. In the end, I want those nice things, too! I'm not advocating for pollution and destruction for the fun of it. I just sincerely doubt that Net Zero will get us those nice things.
- milch 2y ago
  You responded to a comic where a guy has a slide saying those things I enumerated — so the response of "what if it is for nothing" is quite literally in opposition to clean water, livable cities, and so on. It seems your comment was more directed to the post's article and not to the thing you responded to
rat87 2y ago
The problem with this argument is that its vauge and generalizes a bunch of center left stuff. If you want specific goals that don't include reducing carbon you should chase those goals instead of chasing reducing carbon dioxide as a priority. If carbon emissions aren't a big deal then maybe a better way to improve children's health might be to eradicate hookworm or subsidize school meals more or pay for childrens health insurance or go after local pollutants. Now maybe it makes sense to do multiple but you have to look at cost benefit analysis for the tradeoffs. Its also a stupid argument because we know and are sure that climate change isn't a hoax. And that costs of climate change are massive and that any cost benefit analysis for doing more to stop it would indicate we should do more.

by milch 2y ago

gottorf 2y ago

> I'm not sure how you create a better world I go into more depth in my other comment, but the short version is that building everything nice that you listed takes energy, and Net Zero just doesn't have a viable story for how to provide that energy economically and reliably at the scale that we need. > we wish we'd spent the last 20 years not razing forests, polluting air and water, and so on You're painting a false equivalence. Continuing to use fossil fuels doesn't mean chopping down the Amazon and belching foul smoke everywhere. Similarly, building wind and solar doesn't automatically mean you are a good steward of the environment; one could just as easily raze a forest to mine coal as to build a solar farm. In the end, I want those nice things, too! I'm not advocating for pollution and destruction for the fun of it. I just sincerely doubt that Net Zero will get us those nice things.

milch 2y ago
You responded to a comic where a guy has a slide saying those things I enumerated — so the response of "what if it is for nothing" is quite literally in opposition to clean water, livable cities, and so on. It seems your comment was more directed to the post's article and not to the thing you responded to

rat87 2y ago

The problem with this argument is that its vauge and generalizes a bunch of center left stuff. If you want specific goals that don't include reducing carbon you should chase those goals instead of chasing reducing carbon dioxide as a priority. If carbon emissions aren't a big deal then maybe a better way to improve children's health might be to eradicate hookworm or subsidize school meals more or pay for childrens health insurance or go after local pollutants. Now maybe it makes sense to do multiple but you have to look at cost benefit analysis for the tradeoffs. Its also a stupid argument because we know and are sure that climate change isn't a hoax. And that costs of climate change are massive and that any cost benefit analysis for doing more to stop it would indicate we should do more.