3 ms·

So let me get this straight, going back 30-ish years is a-okay when caused by climate change but going back slightly less to curb it is a problem? We haven’t re

• sershe 1y ago
  I found the biggest estimate from a paper as a reference for "catastrophic"/"humanity is done for"/... comments. The more likely estimates are much lower. What do you mean by going back slightly less, in terms of measures to take? Sure, on the merit this particular action was dumb. But on the net I think fossil fuels are for the time being a net positive and non-replacement phase out would be worse than the amount of warming it prevents, not slightly less bad; especially in the developing world. And, because like in so many political issues, nuanced positions aren't really popular (as these we're all gonna die comments illustrate), if having to choose between two flavors of uncompromising shouting I'm going to go with the fossil fuel camp on this issue. Although I d personally prefer more of both plus carbon tax etc for the shift. But my original comment was just trying to put catastrophising into perspective,"following the science" ;)