151–160 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a point to starting geoengineering after the situation is already disastrous? Because that's the only case I see it happening. The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.
Why wouldn’t there be a point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…
People won't. They just won't. Now what are you going to do? If your plan won't work with the humans we have, do you have a realistic plan to change the humans? No, you don't. So your plan won't work. It will not work. So, are you going to stand on your soapbox blazing out your righteous indignation at the folly of humanity, or are you going to try to figure out something that will work with the humans that we have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions ar…
> reality of the situation is that slapping up insulated plasterboard on the inside of half of the UK's homes and putting a trickle vent on the window would save an enormous amout of CO2 and make people more comfortable And meanwhile require a complete redoing of all interior finishes, including the finish carpentry, in the home. IMO, that's the real barrier (no pun intended) here. Near Boston, I live in a 1920s stru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reference: all that CO2 is equal to about 0.04% of human atmosphere. Of which 3% is from human activity. So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere.
That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.
You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…
So you think people who babies and stupid, etc. They're not - they just care about something you don't.
They might be wrong to care about it, but they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
Sure, all the climate scientist are wrong and some random guy in the internet knows more.
The thing is, whomever I will link, you will have some accusation that the scientist’s opinion cannot be trusted for whatever reason. So discussion regarding this issue is kinda pointless anyway.
Time will proof these scientists opposing the human induced climate change narrative to be correct however.
- https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740
- https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203
- https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008
- https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485
- https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944
- https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/174509982623087414...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, except I am pretty sure de-growth will happen, it just will not be under voluntary or controlled conditions.
Degrowth does seem like a tough sell to general populations, when you say not voluntary or controlled you mean like economic collapse and/or ecoauthoritarianism or something else?
I meant that the natural outcome will happen, and likely that will negatively affect the planet's carrying capacity, which will have a negative affect on population and economics.
Like you, I do not see how the collection of world governments will align on all scaling back their economies together.