3 ms·

It's just the most important dimension, by far.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> It's just the most important dimension, by far Strongly disagree. New Delhi’s has gotten more polluted over the last decades, to the point that it’s almost comical. (400+ AQI being normalised.) Post pandemic, it’s done a decent job in some parts at reducing the amount of trash on the roads. On the balance, I find it more pleasant now than before. I’d also guess that most people would prefer trading emissions for e.g. not living next to a carcinogenic or toxic-waste dump.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  No, it's still more important. Continued global warming would eventually render New Delhi uninhabitable.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Continued global warming would eventually render New Delhi uninhabitable This is hyperbolic. It will make it more expensive. But not uninhabitable. You know what would render sections of it literally uninhabitable? A Union Carbide incident [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      Sufficiently high CO2 levels, such as existed at the end of the Permian period, can raise temperatures above that which would be survivable. Sure, people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim. If you think an analogy with the P/T extinction is invalid, note that CO2 levels are rising now much faster than they did over that event.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim I kind of think it does, particularly when we’re talking about temperatures that humans choose to live in (almost precisely as you describe) today. CO2 is not going to render our inland cities uninhabitable. It will make them more deadly, more expensive and less comfortable. It will cause a continuation of the current extinction event, which is already comparable with (if not equivalent to) P/T.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    This is why environmental activism is ineffective and counterproductive. Where I live, the campaign against natural gas and an arbitrary timeline for decarbonization, combined with accelerating the shutdown of a major nuclear plant, just triggered a 30% increase in electrical delivery cost this year and is driving migration due to cost. (to places with dirtier electric and gas production, btw)

> It's just the most important dimension, by far Strongly disagree. New Delhi’s has gotten more polluted over the last decades, to the point that it’s almost comical. (400+ AQI being normalised.) Post pandemic, it’s done a decent job in some parts at reducing the amount of trash on the roads. On the balance, I find it more pleasant now than before. I’d also guess that most people would prefer trading emissions for e.g. not living next to a carcinogenic or toxic-waste dump.

pfdietz 1y ago
No, it's still more important. Continued global warming would eventually render New Delhi uninhabitable.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Continued global warming would eventually render New Delhi uninhabitable This is hyperbolic. It will make it more expensive. But not uninhabitable. You know what would render sections of it literally uninhabitable? A Union Carbide incident [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Sufficiently high CO2 levels, such as existed at the end of the Permian period, can raise temperatures above that which would be survivable. Sure, people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim. If you think an analogy with the P/T extinction is invalid, note that CO2 levels are rising now much faster than they did over that event.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim I kind of think it does, particularly when we’re talking about temperatures that humans choose to live in (almost precisely as you describe) today. CO2 is not going to render our inland cities uninhabitable. It will make them more deadly, more expensive and less comfortable. It will cause a continuation of the current extinction event, which is already comparable with (if not equivalent to) P/T.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  This is why environmental activism is ineffective and counterproductive. Where I live, the campaign against natural gas and an arbitrary timeline for decarbonization, combined with accelerating the shutdown of a major nuclear plant, just triggered a 30% increase in electrical delivery cost this year and is driving migration due to cost. (to places with dirtier electric and gas production, btw)